survey TEAM final reports - Biscayne Bay · 2016-03-25 · 2 Biscayne bay partnership initiative PREFACE Dear Friends, This document is the accompaniment to A Bright, Great Bay, which

B ISCAYNE BAY PARTNERSH IP I N I T IAT IVE

s u r v e y T E A Mfinal reports

survey teams final report1

Contents

preface ................................................................................................................................. 2

BBPI survey TEAM MEMBERS ................................................................................................. 3

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC survey TEAM REPORT.......................................................................... 19

SCIENCE SURVEY TEAM REPORT .............................................................................................. 65

MANAGEMENT SURVEY TEAM REPORT .................................................................................... 231

REGULATION SURVEY TEAM REPORT ...................................................................................... 293

MINORITY REPORT ................................................................................................................ 315

2Biscayne bay partnership initiative

PREFACEDear Friends,

This document is the accompaniment to A Bright, Great Bay, which was developed by the Biscayne Bay PartnershipInitiative’s Policy Development Team. The reports contained in this volume were prepared by the Initiative’s four surveyteams, each of which addressed one of the following themes: social and economic values, science, management, and regula-tion. In addition, one minority report is included in this compilation.

The survey teams spent over one year assessing the status of Biscayne Bay and its resources. The team reports reflect theoutcome of that assessment. In addition, the reports include recommendations for actions to protect, improve, and enhancethe bay’s resources, its social, economic, and natural values, and its ecological health.

The number of individuals who contributed their time and expertise to this effort are too many to name. In particular,many thanks are due to the co-chairs of each of the survey teams: their dedication and leadership were important to thesuccess of this project. A list of survey team co-chairs and members are part of each report found in this volume.

We would also like to thank Bill Matuzeski, Director, US EPA Chesapeake Bay. As “special advisor” to the Initiative, heoffered welcome and valuable advice, perspective, and humor. Finally, we would like to thank the Biscayne Bay PartnershipInitiative’s Coordination Team. These are the people who kept the project moving forward, and without whom it wouldhave never been possible. Coordination Team members who worked throughout the life of the project are listed in the backpages of the Policy Development Committee’s report. Others deserving of our thanks for getting the project off the groundinclude: Melissa Bialczak, Jenny May, John O’Brien, and Maya Compton.

Biscayne Bay is a beautiful and important resource for our community, our state, and our world. It is our hope that theefforts of the many talents that contributed to the production of these documents will bear fruit in continued and improvedhealth for the bay—a bay that can be enjoyed by all.

James F. Murley, Co-Director Edwin Moure, Co-DirectorBiscayne Bay Partnership Initiative Biscayne Bay Partnership InitiativeDirector, FAU/FIU Joint Center for Biscayne Bay FoundationEnvironmental and Urban Problems


BBPI survey TEAM MEMBERS

POLICY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEESOCIAL AND ECONOMIC survey TEAM

SCIENCE SURVEY TEAMMANAGEMENT SURVEY TEAMREGULATion SURVEY TEAM


POLICY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERSCHAIRHarvey Ruvin, County Clerk, Miami-Dade Clerk of Courts

Federal (FACA/Ex-Officio Non-Voting/Liaison)Linda Canzanelli, Superintendent, Biscayne National Park

Dick Frost, former Superintendent, Biscayne National Park

Billy D. Causey, Superintendent, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

Tom Scott, U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Southern District

Bradford E. Brown, Director, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service

Christopher Boruch,* Deputy District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

James G. May, District Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Larry Bowling, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard - MSO

Mike Miles,* Commander, U.S. Coast Guard - MSO

Aaron Higer, Senior Scientist, U.S. Geological Survey

Thomas A. Watts-Fitzgerald,* Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney

Richard Harvey, Director, South Florida Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 4

Eric Hughes,* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 4

Thaddeus Hamilton, Director, SE Florida Urban Community Assistance Program, USDA-NRCS

StateQuinton Hedgepeth,* Commissioner, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Julie Morris, Chairman, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Bob Crawford, Commissioner, Florida Department of Agriculture

Ralph Torres,* Senior Executive Assistant, Florida Department of Agriculture

Ralph Cantral, Executive Director, Florida Coastal Management Program, Florida Department of Community Affairs

Steven Seibert, Secretary, Florida Department of Community Affairs

David B. Struhs, Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Robert G. Brooks, M.D., Secretary, Florida Department of Health

Olga Connor,* Director, Office of Public Health Information, Florida Department of Health


Jose Abreu, District Secretary, Florida Department of Transportation, District 6

Melissa Meeker,* Director of District Management, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, SE District

Cathleen C. Vogel,* Miami-Dade County Commissioner

Brent Waddell, Martin County Commissioner

Robert Parks, Chair, Miami River Commission

Natacha S. Millan, Miami-Dade County Commissioner

Jeb Bush, Governor, Office of the Governor

J. Allison DeFoor, II,* Environmental Policy Coordinator, Office of the Governor

Katherine Fernandez-Rundle, State Attorney, Office of the State Attorney

Gary Winston,* Assistant State Attorney, Office of the State Attorney

Carolyn Dekle,* Executive Director, South Florida Regional Planning Council

Frank Finch, Executive Director, South Florida Water Management District

Roman Gastesi, Jr.,* Director, Miami-Dade Service Center, South Florida Water Management District

County/City

Johnny Winton, City Commissioner, City of Miami

Luis R. Garcia, Jr., Commissioner, City of Miami Beach

Alex Penelas, Executive Office of the Mayor, Miami-Dade County

Merrett R. Steirheim, County Manager, Miami-Dade County

Jimmy L. Morales, County Commissioner, Miami-Dade County Commission

John Renfrow, Director, Miami-Dade County, Department of Environmental Resources Management

Roger Cuevas, Superintendent, Miami-Dade County School District

Phil Schonberger, Commissioner, North Bay Village

Pedro G. Hernandez,* Senior Assistant to the County Manager, Office of the County Manager

Juan Kuryla,* Assistant to the Director, Port of Miami

Charles Towsley, Director, Port of Miami

UniversityRichard Candia, Director of Government Relations, Florida International University

Ronald Jones,* Director, Southeast Environmental Research Center, Florida International University

Modesto Maidique, President, Florida International University

Jon J. Alexiou,* President, Wolfson Campus, Miami-Dade Community College


Alexandria Holloway,* Dean of Academic Affairs, Wolfson Campus, Miami-Dade Community College

Eduardo J. Padron, President, Miami-Dade Community College

Edward T. Foote, President, University of Miami

Otis B. Brown,* Dean, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami

Non-governmental OrganizationsCarol Rist, Representative, 1000 Friends of Florida

Arsenio Milian, President, Citizens for a Better South Florida

Ted Forsgren, Executive Director, Coastal Conservation Association, Florida Chapter

Chris Knight,* Chapter Representative, Coastal Conservation Association, Florida Chapter

Juanita Greene,* Representative, Izaak Walton League

Lloyd Miller, Founder, Mangrove Chapter, Izaak Walton League

Rod Jude, Representative, Sierra Club

Karsten Rist, President, Tropical Audubon Society

Brenda Marshall, Senior Project Manager, Trust for Public Land - Miami Office

Gregory Bush, President, Urban Environment League

Private Sector/IndustryAldo Suarez, Representative, BB Wingnet Shrimpers of Florida

Bouncer Smith, Representative, Biscayne Bay Guides Association

Lisa Maxwell, Executive Officer, Builders Association of South Florida

Henry Rodstein,* President, HR Mortgage and Realty Co.

Jim Walsh, Vice President, Environment, Health & Safety, Carnival Cruise Lines

Keith Revell,* Representative, Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce

William Talbert, III, President and CEO, Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau

Ada Bill,* External Affairs Manager, Florida Power & Light

Manny Rodriguez, Regional Manager, Florida Power & Light

MaryAnn Blom, Senior Vice President, Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce

Walter Revell, Vice Chairman, Environment Group, Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce

Frank Herhold, Executive Director, Marine Industries Association of South Florida

Phil Everingham, President, Miami Marine Council

*Denotes Representative or Alternate


SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC survey TEAM MEMBERS

CO-CHAIRSBill Mauk, President and Chief Executive Officer, Penultimate Group International

Arsenio Milian, President, Citizens for a Better South Florida

Federal (FACA/Ex-Officio Non-Voting/Liaison)

Jim Adams, Cultural Resources Specialist, Biscayne National Park

James Baker, Representative, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Mark Buchbinder, Community Builder, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Keith L. Douglass, President, South Florida Community Urban Resources Partnership

Toni Dufficy, Chief, Interpretation, Biscayne National Park

Wendy OíSullivan, Management Assistant, Biscayne National Park

Rock Salt, Executive Director, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force

Robert Walker, Computer Analyst, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

StateChuck Aller, Water Policy Coordinator, Florida Department of Agriculture

Maria DoloresEspino, Associate Professor, St. Thomas University

Bonnie Kranzer, Executive Director, Governorís Commission for the Everglades

Walter Livingstone, Administrator, Office of Emergency Management, Miami-Dade County Department of Health

Murray Miller, Senior Environmental Scientist, South Florida Water Management District

Eric Silva, Representative, South Florida Regional Planning Council

County/CityTom Benton, City Manager, Village of Miami Shores

William Cullom, President and Chief Executive Officer, Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce

Jean Evoy, Chief, Wetland & Forest Resources, Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management

Jose-Luis Mesa, Director, Metropolitan Planning Organization

Nancy Pantoja, Chief, Airport Engineering, Miami-Dade Aviation Department

Don Pybas, Extension Director, Miami-Dade County Cooperative Extension


William D. Talbert, III, President and Chief Executive Officer, Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau

Hydi Webb, Assistant Chief of Advertising & Public Relations, Port of Miami

Alton Van Sears, Community Services Coordinator, Miami-Dade Community Action Agency

University

Mahadev Bhat, Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, Florida International University

Alice Clarke, Assistant Professor, Florida International University

J. Kenneth Lipner, Professor of Economics, Florida International University

Keith Revell, Assistant Professor of Public Administration, Florida International University

Richard Shepard, Director, School of Architecture, University of Miami

Maria Villanueva, Representative, Marine Affairs & Policy Division, Rosenstiel School of Marine and AtmosphericScience, University of Miami

Lisa Pitman, Representative, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami

Non-governmental Organizations

William Arata, Member, Biscayne Bay Pilots Association

John Benbow, Board Member, NAACP

John Brennan, Chairman, Waterfront Advisory Board

Gregory Bush, President, Urban Environment League

Don Chinquina, Executive Director, Tropical Audubon Society

Marlene Cutler, Natural Resources Chair, League of Women Voters

Michael J. Frawley, Representative, Metropolitan South Florida Fishing Tournament

Harry Horgan, Executive Director, Shake-a-Leg/Miami

Cathy Johnston, Representative, Miami International Boat Show

Al Kaplan, Representative, South Florida Fishing Club

Adam Locke, Executive Director, South Florida Board Sailing Association

Mabel Miller, Member/Advisor, Friends of Cape Florida

Enid Pinkney, President, Dade Heritage Trust

Stuart Reed, Executive Director, Friends of Indian Creek

Steve Reoch, General Manager, Sealine Marina & Yachting Center

L. Benjamin Starrett, Staff Consultant, The Growth Partnership

Stuart Strahl, Executive Director, National Audubon Society


Aldo Suarez, Representative, BB Wingnet Shrimpers of Florida

Wendy Teas, Representative, National Marine Fisheries Service and Friends of Virginia Key

William Tuttle, Representative, Save Old Stiltsville

James Wellington, Board Member, Friends of the Everglades

Private Sector/IndustryStuart Blumberg, President, Greater Miami and The Beaches Hotel Association

Richard Bunnell, President, Bunnell Foundation, Inc.

Elaine Heldewier, Representative, Carnival Cruise Lines

Brenda Kepner, Representative, Carnival Cruise Lines

Cliff Kunde, Representative, Atlantic Gamefish Foundation

Jose Loredo, Representative, Carlton Fields et al., PA

Henry McCary, President, McCary Incorporated

Frank Nero, Representative, Beacon Council

Daniel Ponce, Vice President, Swire Properties, Inc.

George Quintana, Representative, Commercial Fishing Industry

Alfred Sanchez, Community Relations Executive, Royal Caribbean Cruise Line

Irene Murray, Realtor, IM Miami International, Inc.

Murray H. Feigenbaum, Representative, Rock Eagle Corporation


SCIENCE SURVEY TEAM MEMBERSCO-CHAIRSJoan Browder, Ph.D., South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Team Leader, National Marine Fisheries Service, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Harold R. Wanless, Ph.D., Chairman, Geological Sciences University of Miami

Federal (FACA/Ex-Officio Non-Voting/Liaison)

Sonny Bass, Wildlife Biologist, Everglades National Park

Sarah Bellmund, Ecologist, Everglades National Park

James A. Bohnsack, Representative, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Adriana Y. Cantillo, Chemist, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration

Richard Curry, Science Coordinator, Biscayne National Park

Ruth Ewing, Veterinary Medical Officer, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration

David V. Fitterman, Research Geophysicist, U.S. Geological Survey

Max Flandorfer, Water Quality Specialist, Biscayne National Park

Benjamin Haskell, Science Coordinator, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

Bill Kruczynski, Program Scientist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Jerry Laboy, Representative, Seminole Tribe of Indians

Chris Langevin, Hydrologist, U.S, Geological Survey

Brenda Lazendorf, Maritime Archaeologist, Biscayne National Park

Brian Lockwood, Representative, Biscayne National Park

Edward R. Long, Marine Biologist, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Terry Nelsen, Professor, Sedimentology, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration

Peter Ortner, Director, Ocean Chemistry Division, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Raul Patterson, Representative, U.S. Geological Survey


William B. Perry, Marine Ecology, Everglades National Park

Linda Pikula, Representative, National Oceanographic Data Center/Library and Information Science Division, NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration

John Proni, Director, Remote Sensing Division, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration

Michael Robblee, Marine Ecologist, Southeast Environmental Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Florida Interna-tional University

David V. Schmidt, P.E., Chief, Coastal/Navigation Department, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Eugene Shinn, Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey

Jay Slack, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Richard P. Stumpf, Representative, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Stephen T. Sutterfield, Representative, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Stephen L. Traxler, Biologist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Douglas W. Wilson, Oceanographer, Physical Oceanography Division, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Labora-tory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

State

Lara Coburn, Biologist, Diversity Conservation, Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission

Matt Davis, Environmental Scientist, South Florida Water Management District

Steve Davis, Lead Ecologist, South Florida Water Management District

Samir Elmir, P.E., Environmental Administrator, Miami-Dade County Department of Health

Gary Evink, State Ecologist, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, Florida Department of Transportation

Chris Friel, Program Administrator, Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission

Brenda Mills, Representative, South Florida Water Management District

Zaki Moustafa, Senior Environmental Scientist, South Florida Water Management District

Shawn Sculley, P.E., Director, Watershed Research and Planning, Coastal Ecosystems Division, South Florida WaterManagement District

Renate Skinner, District Biologist, Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Gail Sloane, Environmental Manager, Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Roger Smith, Underwater Archaeologist, Florida Department of State

Chuck Sultzman, Representative, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Cecelia Weaver, Senior Environmental Scientist, South Florida Water Management District


County/CityGwen Burzycki, Project Supervisor, Wetlands & Forest Section, Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental

Resources Management

Lee Hefty, Environmental Resource Project Supervisor, Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental ResourcesManagement

UniversityChris Brown, Director, Marine Program, Florida International University

Kay Hale, Librarian, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami

Carol Fretwell, Coordinator, Administrative Operations, Oceanographic Center, Nova Southeastern University

Jerald S. Ault, Professor, Marine Biology & Fisheries, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University ofMiami

Joseph N. Boyer, Assistant Scientist, Southeast Environmental Research Center, Florida International University

Larry Brand, Professor, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami

Michael Cherkiss, Biscayne Bay Researcher, Broward County Extension Office, University of Florida

Dan DiResta, Coordinator, Marine & Atmospheric Science Program, Rosenstiel School of Marine and AtmosphericScience, University of Miami

Michael Durako, Associate Professor, University of North CarolinaóWilmington

James Fourqurean, Associate Professor, Southeast Environmental Research Center, Florida International University

Piero R. Gardinali, Assistant Professor, Florida International University

John Gentile, Senior Scientist, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami

John Gifford, Professor, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami

Brian Haus, Representative, University of Miami

Gary L. Hitchcock, Associate Professor, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami

Colin Hughes, Professor, Biology Department, University of Miami

Elizabeth Irlandi, Assistant Professor of Oceanography, Florida Institute of Technology

Robert L. Kelley, Associate Chairman, Mathematics Department, University of Miami

Tom Lee, Representative, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami

Diego Lirman, Associate Scientist, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami

Kate Mansfield, Representative, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami

Frank Mazzotti, Director, Center for Natural Resources, University of Florida

John F. Meeder, Research Professor, Florida International University

Frank Millero, Professor, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami


James Porter, Professor, Biological Science, University of Georgia

Gary Rand, Ecotoxicologist, FIorida International University

Carlos Rivero, Director, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami

Michael S. Ross, Research Scientist, Florida International University

Michael C. Schmale, Associate Professor, Ocean Pollution Research Center, University of Miami

Joseph E. Serafy, Research Assistant Professor, Marine Biology and Fisheries Department, Rosenstiel School of Marine andAtmospheric Science, University of Miami

Ned P. Smith, Representative, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute

Samuel C. Snedaker, Representative, Marine Biology and Fisheries Department, Rosenstiel School of Marine andAtmospheric Science, University of Miami

Leonel O. Sternberg, Professor, Department of Biology, University of Miami

Philip K. Stoddard, Representative, Florida International University

Peter Swart, Professor, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami

Lenore P. Tedesco, Associate Professor, Department of Geology, Indiana University, Purdue University Indianapolis

John D. Wang, Professor, Applied Marine Physics, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University ofMiami

Private Sector/Industry

Stephen W. Carney, President, Carney Environmental Consulting

R. Grant Gilmore, Senior Aquatic Scientist, Dynamac Corporation

Stephen Langley, Senior Scientist, EAS Engineering

Bill L. Maus, Representative, Cotleur & Hearing

William Precht, Ecological Science Program Manager, Post Buckley Shuh & Jernigan

J. Andrew Risi, President, Environmental Mitigation Group, Inc.

Martin A. Roessler, President, M.A. Roessler Associates, Inc.

Paula Sessions, Representative, Dames & Moore

Amie Davis, Citizen


MANAGEMENT SURVEY TEAM MEMBERSCo-chairsJanet Llewellyn, Director of Water Policy, Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Susan Markley, Ph.D., Chief, Natural Resource Division, Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental ResourcesManagement

Federal (FACA/Ex-Officio Non-Voting/Liaison)Billy D. Causey, Superintendent, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

Julio Fanjul, Senior Planner, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force

Linda Canzanelli, Superintendent, Biscayne National Park

Dick Frost, Former Superintendent, Biscayne National Park

Carole Goodyear, Fishery Management Specialist, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service

Mitchell A. Granat, Civil Engineer, Planning Division, Environmental Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Jackson-ville District

Brad Rieck, Coastal Program Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Fritz Wettstein, Environmental Administrator, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Lower Region (alternate for BillyCausey)

StateRick Alleman, Senior Environmental Scientist, South Florida Water Management District

Ralph Cantral, Executive Director, Florida Coastal Management Program, Florida Department of Community Affairs

Deborah L. Drum, Senior Planner, Coastal Ecosystems Division, South Florida Water Management District

John Folks, Environmental Administrator, Office of Agricultural Water Policy, Florida Department of Agriculture andConsumer Services

Jill Huntington, Operations and Management Consultant, Florida Coastal Management Program, Florida Department ofCommunity Affairs (alternate for Ralph Cantral)

William T. Jolly, Environmental Specialist, Office of Agricultural Water Policy, Florida Department of Agriculture andConsumer Services (alternate for John Folks)

George Jones, Bureau Chief, Bureau of Parks District V, Florida Department of Environmental Protection

David Mayer, Preserve Manager, Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, Florida Department of Environmental Protection

David Miller, Managing Director, Miami River Commission

David K. Roach, Executive Director, Florida Inland Navigation District


Mark Robson, Regional Director, Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission

William Teehan, Fisheries Management Analyst, Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission

County/CityMike Brescher, Marina Manager, Miami-Dade County Department of Parks & Recreation

Cindy Dwyer, Principal Planner, Miami-Dade County Department of Planning and Zoning

George Garett, Director, Monroe County Marine Reserve

Nancy Gassman, Ph.D., Water Resources Manager, Broward County Department of Planning and Environmental Protection(alternate for Steve Sommerville)

Juan M. Kuryla, Assistant to the Director, Port of Miami

Gary Milano, Habitat Restoration Specialist, Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management

Steve Somerville, Director, Broward County Department of Planning and Environmental Protection

UniversityMark Harwell, Director, Center for Marine and Environmental Analyses, University of Miami

Delores Kory, Professor, Department of Professional Management, St. Thomas University

Jim Rivers, Director, Metropolitan Center, Florida International University

Non-governmental OrganizationBetty Fleming, Special Projects Coordinator, 1000 Friends of Florida

Lavinia Freeman, Program Manager, Trust for Public Land

Laura Geselbracht, Community Relations Director, The Nature Conservancy

Susan O. Wilson, Representative, Izaak Walton League

Dick Townsend, Vice President, Tropical Audubon Society

Private Sector/IndustryFran Bohnsack, Executive Director, Miami River Marine Group

Dan Kipnis, Charter Boat Captain

Joan Vernon, Yamaha Contender, Billfish Tournament


REGULATion SURVEY TEAM MEMBERSCO-CHAIRSKenneth B. Clark, District Commander, Marine Patrol, Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission

Phil Everingham, President, Miami Marine Council

Federal (FACA/Ex-officio Non-voting/Liaison)

James G. May, District Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Wayne C. Elliott, Chief, Law Enforcement, Biscayne National Park

Eric Hughes, Representative, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 4

Mike Miles, Commander, Marine Safety Office, U.S. Coast Guard

Tom Rutledge, Supervisory Park Ranger, Biscayne National Park

Charles A. Schnepel, Regulatory Division, Miami Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Thomas Watts-Fitzgerald, Assistant State Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney

StateTerrie Bates, Director, Environmental Resource Regulation, South Florida Water Management District

Jayne E. Bergstrom, Representative, Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Gerald Briggs, Environmental Administrator, Florida Department of Health

Mary Murphy, Administrator, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Regulatory Programs

Kristina Serbesoff, Environmental Analyst, Environmental Resource Regulation, South Florida Water Management District

Gary S. Winston, Assistant State Attorney, Office of the State Attorney

County/City

William M. Brant, Director, Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department

Milton Brelsford, Lieutenant, Marine Patrol Unit, Miami-Dade Police Department

Carl E. Fielland, P.E., Port Engineer, Miami-Dade Seaport Department

Craig Grossenbacher, Chief, Coastal Resources, Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management

Ruth Ellis Myers, Representative, Miami-Dade County Department of Planning and Zoning

Diane O’Quinn Williams, Assistant Director, Shoreline Review Committee, Miami-Dade County Department of Planningand Zoning


Arthur L. Serig, Sergeant, Marine Patrol Detail, Miami Police Department

Marla Sherman Dumas, Community Planning and Development Director, City of Sunny Isles Beach

Frank Vecin, Commander, Environmental Investigations, Metro-Dade Police Department

University

Constantine Hadjilambrinos, Assistant Professor, Florida International University

Fernando Moreno, Academic Chair, University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science/MarineAffairs and Policy

Non-governmental Organizations

Maureen Brody Harwitz, Executive Director, Munisport Dump Coalition

Michael Chenoweth, Representative, Friends of the Everglades

Richard Grosso, Director, Center for Environmental and Land Use Law, Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad LawCenter

Dennis Olle, Conservation Chairman, Tropical Audubon Society

Patti Thompson, Biologist, Save the Manatee

Robert Weinreb, Representative, South Florida Boardsailing Association

Private Sector/Industry

James Porter, Attorney/Partner, Holland & Knight LLP

Bouncer Smith, Representative, Biscayne Bay Guides Association

Edward A. Swakon, President, EAS Engineering, Inc.



SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC survey TEAMFINAL REPORT


social and economic survey team report21

ContentsIINTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 22

The Bay and Its Importance to the CommunityOur Values

RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................... 25

SURVEY OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES............................................................................... 27IntroductionSocial Issues – IntroductionEconomic Issues – Introduction

References for Economics Background Materials ......................................................... 47

APPENDices .......................................................................................................................... 49


IINTRODUCTIONThe Bay and Its Importance to the CommunityBiscayne Bay is one of the world’s great water bodies and a defining feature of life in Miami-Dade County. The Social andEconomic Survey Team has proceeded from a conviction that the preservation and enhancement of the Bay must be acentral priority for policymakers.

The Bay is important, first and foremost, as a marine ecosystem of extraordinary diversity. Within easy reach of thetowers of international finance, tropical reefs teem with jewel fish, green moray eels, brain corals, arrow crabs, conch, eaglerays, and hundreds of other species. Manatees and dolphins swim near causeways, cruise ships, and sports stadiums. Sus-pended at the edge of our sprawling community, mangroves shelter infant game fish and provide nesting sites for sea birds.Few cities in the world have such a variety of life so interwoven with the urban fabric.

Biscayne Bay is also one of the premier recreation spots in the world. Every day of the year, Bay waters are dotted withsails and crisscrossed by pleasure boats. Beaches, sandbars, and parks provide the settings for leisurely access to its calmwaters. And anglers enjoy its bounty.

At the same time, the Bay supports vital economic activity. The Port of Miami is the cruise ship capital of the world andhandles nearly seven million tons of cargo every year. To see this level of commerce in such close proximity to beaches, coralreefs, and mangroves is indeed remarkable.This juxtaposition of corals reefs and skyscrapers, cruise ships and manatees, windsurfers and mangroves, causeways and sea turtle nests makes Biscayne Bay unique, but it also poses a great challenge for ourcommunity. The Bay provides us with a forum for international trade, world-class diving, and peaceful reflection, butmaintaining a balance among these activities will only become more difficult as we grow. Because that combination of workand play, of modern metropolis and natural beauty, makes us who we are, we are compelled to seek ways to preserve, restoreand enhance the Bay – or risk losing it.There was a time, not so long ago, when we did not treat the Bay with the reverenceand care it deserves. Within living memory, large stretches of the Bay were too polluted for swimming. Only in the last threedecades has our commitment to water quality and environmental diversity matched the responsibility presented by thisresource. Although we once used it as a dilution basin for sewage, we have – thankfully – seen the greater value of a clean,healthy Bay and made the necessary investments to realize that goal. No longer is raw sewage a problem; it now remains forus to address other forms of pollution that foul the Bay and endanger its future. Because we are growing as a community –adding as many as half a million residents in the coming decade – we must now take the steps to insure that growth will notdamage the Bay.

Our commitment to Biscayne Bay must therefore extend well beyond maintaining what we have; preservation is notenough. It is too important, and too threatened by growth, for us to settle for the status quo. Instead, we envision a Bay thatis not only cleaner, but also more pristine – which means removing the scars of human activity, rendering future usescompatible with environmental revitalization, and increasing habitat to its highest possible quality and fullest possible scope.Achieving these goals may well take fifty or a hundred years; it is therefore imperative to start now.This will no doubtrequire citizens and public officials to resolve conflicts among what appear to be competing values – public access, economicuse, and environmental restoration. But we believe that those conflicts can be managed through vigorous public effort,education, and a collective commitment to a long-term vision of the Bay, not only as it is now, but as an even more impres-sive natural setting interwoven with a great metropolis.


Our ValuesWe recognize that a healthy environment and a healthy economy need to go hand in hand. The challenge is to encouragethose environmentally compatible economic activities that protect and enhance the Bay while discouraging those activitiesthat would cause environmentally adverse impacts to the Bay.

The future of Biscayne Bay and the protection of its resources cannot be considered outside the larger context of humaninteractions, social values and the regional economy. Within this context:

• we value the Bay, and believe it must become healthier;

• we value the economy in the region, and want to protect and enhance it;

• we value access to the Bay and an educated public who will use it carefully;

• we want a management system that allows us to manage conflicts among these three values.

Below, we discuss these values further in order to describe a broad framework for managing the Bay in a manner thatwill provide for economic activity and recreation while at the same time promoting environmental restoration and protec-tion of Biscayne Bay.

“We value the Bay, and believe it must become healthier.”This value sets an immutable parameter that the natural resources throughout Biscayne Bay must be improved. This isparticularly important in the northern part of the Bay, where these resources have been most impacted, but there areimportant improvements that must be made in central and southern Biscayne Bay as well. In particular, this improvementthroughout the Bay will include the following.

1. A gain in miles of natural shoreline.

2. A spatial increase in marine habitat.

3. A significantly improved diversity and abundance of fisheries.

4. Elimination of all sources of contamination that degrade natural conditions or affects human enjoyment and use.

5. Restoration of more natural quantities and flows of clean water into the Bay.

We believe the efforts to improve hydrology, water quality and habitat quality, particularly the restoration projects,should be guided by these goals.

“We value the economy in the region, and want to protect and enhance it.”

Our long-tem goal must be a stronger economy and a pristine Bay. This means encouraging economic activity that isenvironmentally sensitive, but also developing a regulatory framework that provides clarity, assurance, and predictability. Itseems prudent to prohibit new activities that would damage the Bay. We must seek creative ways to allow for the mainte-nance of existing uses in ways that are compatible with the long-term goal of returning the Bay to a more nearly pristinecondition. This value implies the following.

• Highly valuable, but environmentally adverse, existing economic activities associated with the Bay cannot besummarily prohibited, but their negative impacts must be minimized and fully mitigated.

• In the long term, some economic activities associated with the Bay may need to be phased out because they havean adverse environmental impact on the Bay.


• In the long term those sections of the Biscayne Bay/Miami River shoreline that are currently intensely developedwill be transformed into space for water related and/or water dependent, job producing commercial activities andgreenways that enhance habitat and public access.

We believe efforts to improve physical development, economic development and commercial uses of the Bay, shorelineand watershed should be guided by these principles.

“We value access to the Bay and an educated public who will use it carefully.”We believe that an informed general public with an enlightened stewardship ethic—and their elected officials—are ourprimary force for improving Biscayne Bay. Harm to the Bay due to public ignorance must be eliminated! We also believe thatall people must have safe access and opportunities for responsible use of the Bay, regardless of their economic or socialcircumstances. Public lands along the shoreline should provide maximum opportunity for public recreational and educationexperiences, which will build a sense of community pride, stewardship and ownership of Biscayne Bay. While we acknowl-edge a “carrying capacity” for various parameters of Biscayne Bay, the impacts on these parameters must be reconciledequitably among the various users. This value implies the following.

• All school programs in Dade County should provide education about and awareness of the legacy of the Bay andinclude regular visits to the Bay.

• Public information programs for new residents and tourists should be developed in non-traditional educationalavenues, including radio, television and billboards.

• Public, non-governmental and private lands around the Bay that are used for access should provide education andbe managed to provide safe access and responsible use of the Bay.

• Existing public access opportunities, sites and facilities along the Bay shoreline should be preserved, protected andenhanced.

• Visual access to the Bay should be valued and improved.

• Access must be respectful of the need to protect the Bay’s natural resources.

• Water dependent uses and facilities should be preserved along the Bay shoreline.

• From a public access standpoint, Biscayne Bay should be Miami-Dade County’s equivalent of New York’s CentralPark.

We believe efforts to improve public education, awareness and access for Biscayne Bay should be guided by theseprinciples.

“We want a system that allows us to manage conflicts among these three values.”

We believe that there cannot be unlimited use of the Bay and its resources. There should be maximum opportunity forhuman enjoyment of Biscayne Bay, provided that the sum of all human interaction with the Bay allows the continualimprovement in the health of Biscayne Bay. The Bay should be managed in a manner that provides flexibility in addressingthe inevitable conflicts between preservation and use of the Bay. The management and regulatory systems must be inte-grated among the various agencies – local, state and federal – with jurisdiction involving the Bay in support of commongoals. We seek public and private sector managers with a positive approach and attitude. We seek a world in which theconflicts among our values can be achieved in a broader cooperative management framework, while preserving the safe-guards of our existing environmental laws. Finally, we seek regulatory compliance and enforcement systems that reward goodstewards and fairly and vigorously deal with the bad. The integration system must be open, with broad and inclusive accessfor the public. This value implies:


• An inter-governmental mechanism or forum for joint goal development and improved integration—led by the keyagencies.

• Regulatory and management approaches that emphasize a balance between education and awareness with prohibi-tions and penalties.

• A regulatory system that minimizes costly and ineffective conflicts between local, state and federal regulations.

• A regulatory system that produces cumulative mitigation that is greater than cumulative impact.

We believe efforts to improve coordinated management and regulatory approaches for Biscayne Bay should be guided bythese principles.

RECOMMENDATIONS1. We recommend the development of a Biscayne Bay Master Plan:

We recommend that the Florida Legislature provide $1.5 million to fund the development of a Biscayne Bay Master Planthat would guide efforts to balance appropriate economic use, improved public access, and increased habitat restoration andenvironmental protection.

1. The Bay Master Plan should create linkages between major segments of the population and shoreline sites thatcurrently provide, or could provide, desired uses. Priority should be given to sites that could potentially provide themost environmentally compatible desired shoreline uses and facilities for the largest number of people. A dedicatedsource of funds should be sought to maintain all existing public shoreline in public ownership and to provide forproper upkeep and security at all public shoreline areas. Adequate infrastructure, including parking, should beprovided to support existing Bay access opportunities.

2. The Bay Master Plan should promote links among shoreline activities (e.g. restaurants, attractions, boat tours), Bayaccess sites, and transportation modes (e.g. bus, water taxis, boats, bicycles).

3. The Bay Master Plan should provide mechanisms for managing and funding Bayfront park/Bay access.

4. The Bay Master Plan should provide a long-term strategy to maintain and improve existing public access points andto make more of the Bay shoreline publicly accessible especially in currently developed shoreline areas that havelittle public access, but it should not have environmental regulatory authority.

5. The Bay Master Plan should evaluate ways to limit the liability of parks, public recreation facilities, and SchoolBoards to allow more and better programming for Bay education and access.

6. The Bay Master Plan should seek ways to increase public access opportunities at privately owned facilities.

7. The Bay Master Plan should encourage public/private partnerships and develop economic incentives that willpromote environmentally compatible uses of the Bay and its urban shoreline and engender a sense of volunteerismand community stewardship to protect and improve Bay access.

8. The Bay Master Plan should encourage the use of waterfront property (along the Bay and along the Miami River)for habitat restoration, public access, or, where appropriate, job-producing commercial activity that is compatiblewith environmental protection and enhancement. To achieve this goal, we recommend that public officials in alljurisdictions purchase Bay front property whenever willing sellers appear. Where property bordering the Bayremains in private hands and is used for residential purposes, local governments should undertake beautificationefforts that encourage waterfront landscaping, rather than the use of such property for parking, storage, or utilities.


The plan should be developed by a Task Force involving all governmental agencies currently involved in the manage-ment and regulation of the Bay or Bay-related activities. The Biscayne Bay Master Plan Task Force will, at a minimum:

1. Conduct a comprehensive study assessing all economic activities affecting or affected by Biscayne Bay. This studywould identify the value of commercial activities and residential property, the age and condition of structures,zoning regulations, and land use plans around Bay waters, as well as the environmental impacts of all these activi-ties.

2. Survey all existing publicly owned shoreline sites to determine their present condition and the types and amountsof public access that each facility currently provides. Needed improvements in infrastructure, amenities, program-ming, signage and public transportation to the Bay access points should be identified. The master plan shouldrecommend potential uses and facilities that could be constructed at each site, taking into consideration naturaland physical constraints (e.g. submerged and shoreline vegetation, surrounding land and in-water uses, publictransportation access to site, roadway and in-water access to the site and space for parking).

2. We recommend the following projects be funded as initial steps toward the comple-tion of the Biscayne Bay Master Plan:Although the Biscayne Bay Master Plan Task Force will create additional projects to be carried out in the near and

distant future, the Social and Economic Survey Team has already identified several projects that increase public access to theBay or improve environmental protection. Since they contribute substantially to the achievement of our long-term goals foraccess to the Bay, we recommend the funding of these projects as an initial approach to achieving those goals.

1. We recommend that the Florida Legislature provide $5.8 million to fund the Miami River Greenway project, asdescribed in the Miami River Greenway Action Plan.

2. We recommend that the Florida Legislature provide $3.0 million to fund the initial increment of the “River to Bay”Overtown Safewalk.

3. We recommend that the Florida Department of Transportation seek support from US DOT funding programs forfederal highway mitigation funds to support the “River to Bay” Overtown Safewalk.

4. We recommend that the Florida Legislature provide $5 million to build the first phases of a Julia Tuttle Causewayaccess project, including a fishing pier, picnic facilities, non-motorized boat launch, and safe ingress and egressalong the north side of the Causeway, and a bike path along the L31E levee in south Bay.

5. We recommend that the Florida Legislature provide the Biscayne Bay Master Plan Task Force and the Miami-DadePublic Schools with $2 million to create educational materials that will create an awareness of Biscayne Bay as ourheritage and teach users about our environment, history and cultural ties to the Bay. These materials would beavailable at all access points used by the general public.

3. We recommend that the Miami-Dade County Public School System create a com-prehensive Bay education program for all school children. This program wouldhave a public outreach and education component.1. We recommend that the Florida Legislature provide funds for Miami-Dade County Public Schools to develop a

comprehensive environmental education experience (outdoors on the Bay) for each student some time duringgrades three through six of their elementary school career. This program would include camping sessions at Baysites involving youth living and working together to enhance Bay environments through service projects. Waterand terrestrial trails should be designed and built to enhance bay learning opportunities.


2. We recommend that Miami-Dade County Public Schools establish a permanent environmental education publicawareness task force (with a professional coordinator) to oversee the comprehensive Bay education program.

3. We recommend that the Florida Legislature provide Miami-Dade County Public Schools with $1 million to initiatea community (BBPI, local, state and federal government) effort to help establish a top quality science research highschool through acquisition of the Burger King property on Biscayne Bay (see Draft Concept Paper: FERM-FloridaEnvironmental Research Magnet).

4. We recommend that the Florida Legislature provide $2.8 million to build two Environmental Education Centers(Science Research Outposts) at Oleta River State Preserve and Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park. These centersshould have laboratories where natural science can be studied using scientific methodology.

SURVEY OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUESIntroductionAlong with our subtropical climate, the Everglades and ocean beaches, Biscayne Bay defines Miami-Dade County. The Bayis entwined in the daily lives of thousands of people as they commute over the causeways or live or work within walkingdistance of the shoreline. Thousands more work in water dependent or water related sectors or frequently include a Bayactivity within their recreational time. Visitors who come to Miami-Dade County specifically for the purpose of fishing orboating may also form close bonds with the Bay.

For the past one hundred years there has been a strong relationship between the economy and quality of life in Miami-Dade County and Biscayne Bay. The importance of the Port of Miami to Miami-Dade County’s economy is well docu-mented. Far less well known is the aggregate contribution of the water dependent facilities along the Miami River, shorelineattractions such as the Miami Seaquarium and Bayside, tour and party boats, charter boats, guided fishing trips, shorelinerestaurants and water related activities such as boat sales and repairs. Taken altogether, Bay related activities and facilitiesmay account for approximately 15% to 20% of the local economy. Of potentially even greater impact is the market and taxvalue of shoreline real estate. However, the exact extent of the Bay’s overall importance to the local and south Floridaeconomy is not well documented.

Social Issues – IntroductionThe way in which people relate to Biscayne Bay is dependent on their ease of access, and it is also a function of theirawareness of the Bay and its resources. Miami-Dade County is a complex multi-ethnic community in transition. With itsmixed ethnicity and large percentage of people from other parts of the United States as well as from other countries, itpresents unique challenges and opportunities. Some people come here with a strong tradition of water use, while othersarrive with little exposure to marine communities. New arrivals with close bonds to the water sometimes bring with themexpectations and patterns of use that are not appropriate for Biscayne Bay or allowable under current laws. Therefore, therelationships between the County’s population and the Bay are both dynamic and sometimes little understood. We believethat it is essential to foster a sense of stewardship for the Bay through increased and enhanced public access, awareness andeducation.

B.1 Access

Access to Biscayne Bay has been an issue ever since captains of deep draft ships learned they were unable to pass across theshallow water of the Bay to anchor at the mouth of the Miami River. By the early 1900s, the struggle for Miami’s waterfront


involved extensive legal wrangling for land access, notably between the Flagler forces and a host of local residents whosought to tear down a waterfront fence that kept people and goods from the water and far away markets. (The anti-Flaglerforces won an important State Supreme Court decision, often known as the Worley Case.) In recent years, issues of publicaccess have involved struggles over public parkland, port development, the legitimacy of individual watercraft and thesanctity of the environment. Questions about public access to our Bayfront go to the heart of our identification as a region,the democratic nature of our political culture and our sensitivity to the environment.

Public access to Biscayne Bay has itself dramatically changed within the past century. Originally, local attention wasfocused on the Bay as a place to fish and trade, attract visitors and new residents. Yet with technological and scientificadvances, the magnitude of immigration as well as economic and population growth, the use and perception of the Bay hasbeen altered. We need to know that history as we plan for the future. Environmental concerns over pollution and preserva-tion of natural habitats are important to thousands of local residents who appreciate the interconnected quality of thedecisions of our daily lives with our relationship to the Bay and our water systems.

From a public access standpoint, Biscayne Bay should be Miami-Dade County’s equivalent of New York’s Central Park,but thousands of residents and visitors to south Florida do not have adequate access to the Bay. Appropriate, environmen-tally compatible Bay access is essential if we are to foster a sense of community pride and ownership of Biscayne Bay.

Access to the Bay may be described in terms of water dependent or water-related activities or in terms of views andvistas. Water dependent activities, by definition, require direct physical access to the water or shoreline. Popular activities inand adjacent to Biscayne Bay include shoreline fishing, boating, water skiing, wind surfing, jet skiing, canoeing, swimmingand snorkeling. Water-related activities are less precisely defined, and certainly less easily quantifiable in economic terms,but may include things such as picnicking or nature photography that may be enhanced if they occur near the shoreline, oractivities such as boat sales and repair. They provide critically important links to nature, romance and spiritual values.

Access can also be considered in terms of visual corridors. The Rickenbacker and Julia Tuttle Causeways and some highrise buildings provide spectacular vistas of the Bay. The many images and moods of the Bay can be seen from parks along theshoreline. Relatively few streets run for any length along the Bayshore, but occasional glimpses between buildings mayprovide beautiful or even awe inspiring views of the dawning or setting sun or thunder clouds over Biscayne Bay.

B 1.2 Existing AccessAt first glance, there appears to be significant public access to Biscayne Bay. Table 1 summarizes access opportunities at morethan 40 shoreline parks. The table also summarizes information on public transportation and bike path access to thesefacilities and opportunities for picnicking and viewing.

Many other facilities (e.g. commercial marinas, boat rental facilities, yacht and sailing clubs, fishing and charter boats,tour and party boats shoreline restaurants and shoreline attractions) provide important physical and visual access to the Bay.

B. 1.3 Current Plans to Improve Public Shoreline Access

Plans to recapture the waterfront are being developed in many areas of Miami- Dade County. The City of Miami Beach hasplans for greenways along the Collins Canal and Indian Creek and for a wading beach and kayak launch at Pine Tree Park.In North Bay, the City of North Miami is working to create a new regional park at Munisport. North Miami is alsopartnering with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to create an education/recreation center at the oldBlue Marlin fish-camp site on the Oleta River. Also on the Oleta River, a primitive campsite and a canoe trail are beingplanned for the old Terama site.

The City of Miami has formed a Parks Advisory Board to oversee its parks and to plan and redesign Bicentennial Park.An ambitious undertaking has been initiated with the creation of the Bicentennial Park / Waterfront Renewal Committeewhich will strive to link the shoreline from Pace Park to the mouth of the Miami River with a public shoreline walkway and


to link Bicentennial Park with Park West and Overtown. The Trust for Public Land has spearheaded an important effort tobuild a greenway along the Miami River and across town to the Bay. Across the Bay on Virginia Key, a task force is develop-ing a plan to reopen the park and include new nature trails and a civil rights interpretative center while the Army Corps ofEngineers on will mitigate environmental conditions caused by shoreline erosion and degradation of the coastal hammockand dune system. The City of Miami has also received a grant from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop a restora-tion and public access plan for five spoil islands at Dinner Key.

In south Dade, plans have been developed for a bike path that would link Homestead Bayfront Park with Black PointPark along the L-31E levee. Trail design is 30% complete. Spurs from the bike path will reach the Bay at the Mowry and C-102 canals. Parking and fishing facilities will replace the informal ad hoc access that presently exists at these canal mouths.The County Parks Department is working with the Solid Waste Department to lease a property that will function as atrailhead in the Lakes by the Bay area. A new general plan is being developed for the Deering Estate. It will integrate all newCounty acquisitions alon¡g the Bay and along Old Cutler Road and include Bay access improvements in the form of canoelaunches, docks and picnic areas.

Over the years there have been dozens of plans to improve Watson Island and Virginia Key, which have been zoned anddeeded as parkland. Today, these areas represent unrealized opportunities on a grand scale. The proposed location of twocruise ship berths, coupled with the proposed relocation of Parrot Jungle and planned construction of the Miami Visitors andConvention may leave very little publicly usable waterfront shoreline on Watson Island. The City of Miami and the Countyhave a responsibility to make sure that extensive waterfront parkland is enhanced in ways that reflect the language of theirown 1997 Master Plan. It may not be too late to develop a new master plan for Watson Island that integrates the plans foreach of these facilities and maximizes public shoreline access, but there is little time to waste.

B.2 Education and Public Awareness

The Greater Miami population is now close to 2.2 million. In another decade, it is estimated to reach over 2.5 million.However, most of our young people and adults lack first hand exposure to Biscayne Bay and its dynamics. Successful projectssuch as those listed below, are being studied to help amplify our ideas about educational design:

• Indian River Lagoon

• St. Lucie Estuary

• Charlotte Harbor

• Appalachacola Bay

• National Estuary Program

• Chesapeake Bay Foundation

B.2.1 Existing Environmental Educational Activities and Resources

Miami-Dade County public schools serve 360,000 students with no less than 10,000 entering the system each year. Atpresent the following environmental education programs are carried out by the public and private schools, environmentalorganizations, federal and state agencies. While these programs are often of very high quality, they reach only a fraction ofthe student population in Miami-Dade County in any given year. Their focus is also typically broader than Biscayne Bay.There is still a great need for environmental education activities and resources focused specifically on the Bay directly andreaching all students and residents.


ActivitiesC. Contemporary Issues In Science Forum is a program that involves 200-300 middle and high school students in

selected schools in conducting research on current critical environmental issues. The students meet with adultresource personnel and other interested students to develop potential solutions in a large forum where resolutionsare made on how to cope with these problems both on the local and global level.

D. The Everglades Institute is a week -long program that involves high school students in decision-making concern-ing critical environmental concerns of South Florida.

E. The Earth Day Planting Activities involve students in removing exotic trees and plants from designated areaswhile replacing them with native trees and plants that have been purchase by the student groups or donated from avariety of sources.

F. The Center for Environmental Education introduces approximately half of the fifth graders each year to environ-mental concerns and basic ecological concepts. The center also has a high school program that involves advancedenvironmental and ecological studies.

G. The Everglades National Park Program introduces elementary school students to the wonders of the evergladeswith student activities done at the park with the national park staff educators. Students learn about the interrela-tionships of the organisms that inhabit the park.

H. Enviro-Cops is a program created and organized by the ARISE Foundation that involves elementary students inidentifying waste pollution areas and potential pollution sources and in taking positive action to clean up theenvironment. The motto is to “arrest waste wherever possible.”

I. The Florida International University Environmental Awareness Conference is conducted each year to train highschool students in dealing with environmental issues facing the world today. Several hundred students from schoolecology clubs participate annually.

J. The Biscayne Nature Center conducts environmental programs on weekends for students and interested adultsusing a volunteer staff composed partially of Center for Environmental Education teachers and working out of theCenter.

K. The South Florida Chapter of The Explorers Club gives a $2100 dollar scholarship for a student to attend asummer research program.

InitiativesL. The District-wide School Recycling Program involves all the Dade County Public Schools. Pickup bins have been

placed at all sites for aluminum cans and office paper. Additionally, about 50 sites also recycle cardboard.

M. A Mathematics, Science, Computer Education, and Environmental Education Task Force has been created tomake recommendations concerning these areas. The Task Force has addressed the Systemic Statewide Initiative ofthe Florida Department of Education which is developing a K-12 science curriculum with environment as its maintheme.

N. The K-12 Environmental Scope and Sequence Writing Team is developing an environmental curriculum com-plete with resources that can be used to inset environmental concepts into all levels of the science curriculum fromgrades K-12.


CurriculaO. The 4R’s Recycling Curriculum from the Florida Department of Education has been distributed to all schools. It

contains hands-on student activities to promote n awareness.

P. The Biological Diversity Curriculum deals with one of the major problems in South Florida, which is disposing ofall the wastes we, produce. This curriculum is designed as activities for K-12 students in solving these problems.

Q. Dade County Environmental Story is a historical perspective of the environmental situation in South Florida andhow it has changed drastically since the turn of the century. This is a reference book in addition to providingactivities for students K-12.

R. The Companion Reader to the Dade County Environmental Story is a compendium of environmental storiesrelative to South Florida. It supplements student environmental resources concerning Dade County.

S. The South Florida Water Management District Water Curriculum is supplementary material on water andenvironmental concerns that has been produced and targeted for specific grade levels in the elementary, middleand senior high school. The material was given to the Dade County Public Schools and distributed free of chargeto thousands of students.

B.2.2 Current Plans to Improve Environmental Education Outreach

Biscayne Area Science Research Outposts

Over several decades, a series of field study facilities (science research outposts) will be established throughout the BiscayneBay area. Each station, built on stilts, will include an upper level laboratory, accommodating computers, aquariums, micro-scopes, weather and solar energy instrumentation. Stored at ground level will be canoes/kayaks, bicycles, life jackets, sciencefield equipment, an electric golf cart and a small safety boat with a motor.

Outposts will be placed where they will not adversely affect natural resources. Each facility will serve teams of talented,high interest and/or academically gifted high school juniors and seniors who will utilize scientific method to solve environ-mental problems.

An experienced science research teacher assigned by Miami-Dade County Public Schools will help design, superviseand monitor all activities. University interns will aid inprogram implementation.

Sites should be within city, county, state or federal public lands (parks) which feature a diversity of terrestrial andmarine communities. It is hoped that a pilot program and facility can by operational by the 2003 school year.

Investigation has shown that local park systems (city, county, state and federal) do not have the funding to carry outneeded ongoing science research in their natural areas. There are not adequate science research programs in our publicschools offering science students experience in field studies utilizing scientific methodology.

Resulting research data should serve the various park systems in continually analyzing natural area dynamics. Inaddition to giving working student scientists real life experience, it is believed that their close involvement with solvingBiscayne Bay area problems will gain them in-depth knowledge and a heightened sense of place.

As the result of their investing their interest, talent and time in the enterprise, students will become the well-informedbusiness people, elected officials, voters and possibly scientists of our community. Their work should generate positiveattitudes toward conservation of our valuable natural resources in the Biscayne Bay area, among other citizens in Miami-Dade County.


The Florida Environmental Research Magnet (FERM)This concept is currently being considered by the Miami-Dade School Board. The FERM program would consist of an entireschool where all of its students would be involved in different aspects of environmental research and occupations. There arenumerous environmental programs in the district and throughout the state but they are usually small programs with limitednumbers of students nestled within a larger school setting. The Florida Environmental Research Magnet (F.E.R.M.) is aconcept whose time has come.

This environmental magnet school would involve the community, local industry, and the public schools for the purposeof providing environmental impact, social management and science research studies of Biscayne Bay and connected estuar-ies. The school would have a partnership with Biscayne National Park and would use the resources of the Park and its staffto utilize the natural environment as an extended classroom and have students interacting with park rangers and researchersin conducting research as part of the curriculum. Students attending the school would also have the opportunity to partici-pate in a full range of secondary school course offerings.

Biscayne National Park would provide students with an open laboratory, literally in the school’s backyard. The research-ers in the park could actually become laboratory directors for students conducting research as a part of the school’s program.In addition to the Biscayne National Park Partnership, a consortium of institutions of higher education consisting of theUniversity of Miami, Florida International University, and Miami-Dade Community College, among others would collabo-rate to provide research and educational programs at the F.E.R.M. school.

The science resources center, co-located with the school, would be the site of a teacher education center that wouldprovide model professional development programs for teachers. The research laboratory would be similar to the University ofMaryland Center for environmental and Estuarine Studies (UMCES).

In addition to the regular facilities of a typical high school FERM should house an amphitheater and video productioncenter with the possible inclusion of a small science museum and an exhibit area focussing on South Florida and BiscayneBay. FERM is a unique concept that has the potential for becoming a demonstration site for national and international visitsform people interested in developing other environmental schools and research programs.

B.3 Contemporary Issues and Opportunities in Access and AwarenessThis century has seen much of the urban shoreline of the Bay become privatized and lined with residences. Access is notequitably distributed along the Bay shoreline. The location and amount of access is generally not tied to population centers.Where roads end at the Bay, the rights of way have often been vacated and incorporated into the adjacent private landholdings. The idea of providing public access at street ends or causeways has often met with resistance from surroundinglandowners. Many members of the public are unaware of existing Bay access points, because they are not well marked oraccessible from public transportation.

The continuing trend toward gated communities has also decreased public shoreline access, or created a perception thataccess to public shoreline parks within those areas has become restricted. In some instances the public shoreline has beenfenced off for security purposes. Also, some of the shoreline walkways that have been approved by the County’s ShorelineDevelopment Review Committee have been gated or eliminated after the project has been built ostensibly over securityconcerns. Under the Shoreline Development rules, a Baywalk is a typical form of mitigation if there is encroachment intothe shoreline setback or view corridor. Recently, however, some developers have asked to pay a mitigation fee in order tohave the access placed outside of their development or for some other form of off-site mitigation. While this idea may beviewed with skepticism by some, it may provide a funding mechanism that can be used to augment public access andenvironmental education opportunities in presently underused public areas.

From Matheson Hammock south most of the Bay shoreline is lined with mangrove forests. South of the Deering Estate,most of the Bay shoreline is within the boundary of Biscayne National Park. However, the only maintained access points are


at Matheson Hammock, the Deering Estate, Black Point, Homestead Bayfront and the Biscayne National Park headquartersat Convoy Point. The Snapper Creek, C-100, Black Creek, C-102, Military Canal and C-103 outlets afford some additionalaccess for fishing or launching of small boats.

In recent years, several water dependent shoreline uses have been converted to non-water dependent uses. Marinecommercial and industrial areas along the Dumfoundling Bay Canals and along the Miami River are becoming multifamilyresidential. Commercially zoned unused lots on the Miami River are being proposed for residential multifamily. At least onecommercial waterfront property at the upstream end of the River is being proposed for a hotel near the edge of a veryindustrialized area. Some of the proposed changes could augment public shoreline access. For example, some marine indus-trial properties are proposed for shopping and restaurants and it seems highly likely that some restaurant type uses willovertake the marginal terminals like the ones trading with Haiti.

A hotly contested issue has been the use of dedicated public parks and other publicly–owned property along theshoreline, for commercial purposes, limiting future opportunities for public access and recreation. Important public accessopportunities have been lost in recent years as areas that were “supposed” to be bought and used for public park and accesspurposes were not. The lack of government oversight in the process of protecting public land needs to be addressed andquestions need to be raised about why the press has not functioned more effectively as “watchdogs” over public lands andwaterfront access. A good example is the property adjacent to the Barnacle, which is now the Cloister’s development. Also,parcels that were historically intended or used as open space parks or for water dependent purposes (or in some cases both)have been proposed for sale or development. The most obvious recent example being the development of the AmericanAirlines Arena on the old FEC site adjacent to Bicentennial Park. Another example is Alice Wainwight Park wherereductions in public parking, and neighborhood concerns for safety have significantly eroded the public’s ability to visit thewaterfront.

There are many other ways in which public access to the Bay is limited, appropriately and inappropriately:

• Environmental restrictions such as the banning of personal watercraft in Biscayne National Park, restriction innumbers of new powerboat slips for manatee reasons and the no entry zone in Virginia Key Coastal Wildlife Areadecrease certain types of access.

• Access may also be limited for members of the community who have historically had very little contact with theBay. For many years, access to the Bay was largely non-existent, then limited to the beach on Virginia Key for mostAfrican Americans. Consequently, many people did not grow up with a strong tradition of Bay use. Today there arepeople living within a few miles of the Bay who have never been boating or swimming in the Bay.

• The forms of public transportation taking people to the waterfront and around the Bay limit the ability of many toenjoy the water or constrain the tourist industry’s ability to present a more comprehensive experience of our region.People who do not live or work near the Bay shore frequently do not have adequate access to the water.

• The unfriendly or dangerous condition of waterfront parks can inhibit the desire for people to come to the Bay.

• The lack of overall planning for public development of museums and attractions, and the maintenance of Bayfrontland clearly inhibits the integration of the urban waterfront as a coherent attraction possessed by cities such asBaltimore, Charleston, Chicago or New York.

Along the urban Bay shoreline, access to and through park areas is directly related to the type of facilities, upkeep,security and programming that each park provides. If they have a choice, most people will avoid areas with piles of trash anddebris, facilities in disrepair, poor security or limited parking. To be successful, Bay access points must be safe and activelyused, attractive, properly maintained, and have infrastructure and amenities that are tied to user needs.

At many of the most heavily used ramps, the number of parking spaces limit the number of trailered boats that can belaunched on busy weekends. In other areas, the number of power boats launched may be limited by the length of time peoplewill have to travel through no wake zones to reach their desired destination. However, these limitations must be viewed inthe context of the Bay’s carrying capacity.


There are more than fifty miles of publicly owned Bay shoreline, many of the shoreline parks are heavily used, butothers are notably underused or closed. The infrastructure at many shoreline parks is outmoded, inappropriate and in a stateof disrepair. Successful parks, such as Kennedy Park in Coconut Grove stand in stark contrast to Bicentennial Park or JoseMarti Park that have poor security, design problems and little active use.

The Rickenbacker Causeway provides opportunities for picnicking, swimming, windsurfing, dog walking and otheractivities in a non-park setting. It is available to all with access to a car or the bus fare. In contrast, the Julia Tuttle Causewayprovides little more than beautiful Bay views.

B.4 General Principles for Providing Public Access and Awareness• Over-Arching Concept: Access creates recreational and education experiences which will build a sense of commu-

nity pride, stewardship and ownership of Biscayne Bay. From a public access standpoint, Biscayne Bay should beMiami-Dade County’s equivalent of New York’s Central Park.

• Everyone, regardless of economic status, is entitled to visual access to the Bay from public lands and to physicalaccess to the Bay provided that the types and intensities of access are safe and compatible with protecting the Bay’snatural systems and threatened or endangered species.

• As a general principle we should preserve, protect and enhance all existing public access opportunities, sites andfacilities along the Bay shoreline. Adequate infrastructure, including parking, should be provided to supportexisting Bay access opportunities Any reduction in acreage or accessibility to public land near the Bay should takeplace only for an overriding purpose of public necessity.

• Public access should be used to create an awareness of Biscayne Bay as our heritage and to teach users about ourenvironment, history and culture. It should result in a positive experience of the Bay.

• All public land along the shoreline should be accessible to all. However, it is also essential to understand thatparklands have an inherent carrying capacity and that unlimited access and overuse may diminish the value of theBay experience and negatively impact the Bay resources that we value as a community.

• Public access should be equitable; All segments of the population, including those who are not familiar with theBay, should have access to Bay-related programs and opportunities. Every child should access the Bay at least once ayear through an educational / recreational experience. Ideally, every resident in the county should be able to accessthe Bayfront within one hour of travel time.

• Access points should be linked using a variety of economic and commercial activities (e.g. shoreline restaurants andattractions, boat tours) and transportation modes (e.g. bus, water taxis, bicycles, boats). People should be madeaware of access points via improvements in signage and information about public transportation to the Bay accesspoints.

• Visual access to the Bay should be valued and improved whenever possible. This is especially true today whenpassive recreational activities such as walking are very popular. Access should be provided at both the neighbor-hood and regional levels

• Access needs should not be allowed to override the paramount need to protect environmental values. Access mustbe respectful of the need to protect the Bay’s carrying capacity.Access must not be allowed to negatively impact theBay’s natural values or reduce the value of the Bay use experience. As more people use the Bay, it may becomenecessary to extend additional protection to sites of high environmental value through limits on types, times, ornumber of users. It may also become necessary to impose use restrictions such as the recently established clear zonearound cruise and cargo ships traversing Government Cut Channel in order to prevent life threatening conflictswith other Bay users.


• Water dependent uses and facilities should be preserved along the Bay shoreline. Local governments should adhereto existing adopted policies in their comprehensive plans that set waterfront use priorities.

Economic Issues – IntroductionBiscayne Bay is the most prominent feature of Miami-Dade County’s landscape, extending for almost the entire length of theCounty from Haulover Inlet in the north to the upper reaches of Key Largo in the south. The majority of the County’s 2.1million residents live within a few miles of the bay. While the relationship between Biscayne Bay and Miami-Dade’s people,economy and overall quality of life is undeniable, with the exception of the economic contribution of the Port of Miami,businesses along the Miami River, and other water-dependant establishments, there is very little definitive understanding ofthe magnitude, breadth, or extent of the bay’s economic contribution to the community. Likewise, the adverse impacts ofcertain segments of the economy on the bay are not well understood.

This section will provide some background on the demographics and major economic sectors of Miami-Dade County.The County’s economy, which is highly dependant on international trade and tourism, and its continual population growth,rely on the use, and place taxiing demands on, the environs surrounding and within Biscayne Bay. A better understanding ofthese issues will help us realize more definitively the relationship between the economy and the bay and will help us identifythe areas where additional information is needed to expand on this understanding. Better awareness of the economic role ofthe bay will assist policymakers as they attempt to preserve and enhance the quality of the environment, and will providegreater insight into which economic sectors or activities should be promoted in the development of the area’s economy.

C.1 DemographyDuring the coming decades, population growth will make it more difficult to preserve and enhance Biscayne Bay. Florida is agrowing state, South Florida is a growing region, and Miami-Dade is a growing County; this means an increasing demand foraccess to the bay and more human activity surrounding the bay – with potentially adverse environmental consequences.Perhaps most importantly, if current trends persist, much of our population growth will come from outside Florida andoutside the United States; Miami-Dade County will thus continue to become home for citizens who are not familiar withthe bay ecosystem and who will need to be educated about its value to our community.

With a population close to 15 million, Florida is the fourth most populous state in the nation. It is also one of the fastestgrowing, and is expected to increase by 6 million people by 2025. Florida is expected to replace New York as the third mostpopulous state by 2020 (U.S. Census: 1997).

Miami-Dade County has experienced tremendous population growth since 1900 and will continue to do so (see Figure1). With a population of 2.1 million, Miami-Dade County accounted for 13.9% of Florida’s total population in 1999 (FLConsensus Estimating Conference: 2000). By 2010, Miami-Dade’s population will reach almost 2.5 million (BEBR, 1999A).

Many municipalities in Miami-Dade County border Biscayne Bay. A list of some of these (along with their 1998estimated population) includes: Miami Beach (93,464), Aventura (20,349), Bal Harbour (3,151), Coral Gables (41,624),Key Biscayne (9,471), Miami Shores (10,199), North Miami (50,422), and North Miami Beach (36,727). Additionally, alarge portion of the City of Miami’s 364,765 residents live near the shores of Biscayne Bay (BEBR, 1999B).

The County is rich in ethnic and cultural diversity. One-third of the County’s 1990 population was foreign-born. In1998, 55% of Miami-Dade’s population was Hispanic (U.S. Census, 1999). The County is also home to many people ofCaribbean, non-Hispanic decent.


Gro

wth

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Years

Figures 2 and 3 give a detailed description of the components of the demographic changes in Miami-Dade Countybetween 1980 and 1999. A prominent feature during both decades is the large figure for international migration, especiallyin the Hispanic and Black populations. During 1997 for instance, of the 45,707 international immigrants to Miami-DadeCounty almost 25,000 were from Cuba. Other significant immigrations (in descending order) in that year came from Haiti,Nicaragua, Colombia, Jamaica, Honduras and Peru. At the same time, there has been a significant out-migration of theCounty’s population. In 1996 for example, the State had a positive net migration of almost 120,000 persons, while Miami-Dade County had a negative net migration of almost 25,000 (BEBR, 1999B).

Although Miami-Dade has traditionally been the home to a large retired population, the growing County, coupled withimmigration and in-migration figures is younger than the adjacent counties with 35% of the population aged 24 or younger.This compares to the South Florida average of 31% (Florida Consensus Estimating Conference, 2000). As for the olderpopulation, in 1998, 13.7% of the County’s population was 65+, compared to the State average of 18.4%.

PopulationFigure 1Population Growth in Miami-Dade County

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population, Vol. 1, Characteristics of Population,Part 11, & FL Consensus Estimating Conference, 2000 & BEBR, 1999.


C.2 Economy and EmploymentWith so many newcomers streaming into the region, there will be greater pressure on the local economy and local politiciansfor jobs, housing, and recreational facilities. Even after the longest economic expansion in American history, Miami-DadeCounty’s economy remains relatively weak. Although several of the communities bordering on the bay are fairly well-to-do,Miami-Dade County and the City of Miami in particular continue to have very high rates of poverty, sluggish job growth,and large (and growing) population of unskilled workers. This means that public officials must focus on economic growth asa public priority.

Traditionally, the economy of Florida and Miami-Dade County has been dominated by construction, agriculture,tourism, and the service demands of a rapidly increasing resident base. The current trend, however, is for growth of more

Figure 2Components of Population Change in Miami-Dade from 1980-1990

Components of Change Hispanics Blacks Non-Hispanic Total Population Whites

1980 Census Results 581,000 282,000 775,945 1,626,000Births (+) 110,000 95,000 78,075 280,000Deaths (-) 70,000 25,000 79,425 173,000Natural Increase 40,000 70,000 -1,350 107,000In-Migration (+) 200,000 50,000 253,750 500,000Out-Migration(-) 120,000 72,000 410,880 600,000Net Domestic Migration 80,000 -22,000 -157,130 -100,000Irurnigration (+) 220,000 90,000 4,650 310,000Emigration (-) 5,000 5,000 5,150 15,000Net Foreign Migration 215,000 85,000 -500 295,000Net Total Migration 295,000 63,000 157,630 195,000Total Change 335,000 133,000 -158,980 302,000Population Estimates for 1990 916,000 415,000 616,965 1,928,000

Source: Boswell, Thomas D. and James R. Curtis, April 1991.

Figure 3Components of Change, Miami-Dade County and Florida, 1990-1999

Component Miami-Dade Florida

1990 Population 1,937,194 12,938,0711999 Population 2,175,634 15,111,244Births 90–99 301,761 1,781,648Deaths 90–99 172,737 1,370,234Net International Migration 337,174 640,109Net Domestic Migration -236,078 1,108,514Population + or – 238,440 2,173,173Births minus Deaths 129,024 411,414% growth from natural increase 54.11% 18.93%% growth from Int’l migration 141.41% 29.46%% growth from Domestic migration -99.01% 51.01%

Source: Population Estimates Program, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2000


service-oriented industries including banking, real estate, accounting, legal, and retail enterprises. Overall the serviceindustry is the largest employer sector in the County, followed by trade, and government (32%, 26% and 14% respectively)(FDLES, 2000) (See Figure 4a). This compares to Figure 4b, which shows the employment makeup for the entire State.Seventy-eight percent of Florida’s minority-owned firms are located in South Florida, and 52% of the total are in Miami-Dade (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992).

Miami-Dade County’s workforce consists of 1,204,996 full-time and part-time employees (U.S. Dept. of Commerce,2000). Average wages in the County are $30,899 and the median household income is $33,375 compared to the State’s of$29,998 (BEBR, 1999B). (Miami-Dade’s per capita personal income, though, is $21,000 which is lower than the Stateaverage of approximately $24,500 (FDLES, 1998). This low per capita income is due to the County’s large population ofyoung individuals, age 0-24, who earn little or no income, and have a high poverty rate.

Florida’s unemployment rate, at 4.3%, mirrors the national average of 4.5% (Rust, 1998). Miami-Dade County’sunemployment rate, at 5.3%, ranks above the State and national average (FDLES, 2000). A contributing factor to theCounty’s employment problems is that there are not enough low-skilled positions for all the people that need jobs – SouthFlorida has reached a saturation point in low-skilled employment. The problem is compounded by the large number ofpeople coming off welfare and joining the workforce, and the large numbers of immigrants, who need entry-level, low-skilledpositions that are just not available (Rust, 1998).

Manufacturing 7.34%

Trade 26.29%

Services31.05%

Total Government 14.39%

Finance, Insurance& Real Estate 6.87%

Agriculture 1.28% Construction & Mining 3.64%

Transportation, Commuications

& Public Utilities 9.14%

Figure 4a Miami-Dade Total Employment by Major Industry Categories–1999

Source: Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Office of Labor Market Statistics, 2000.


In 1995, approximately 2.2 million people in Florida lived in poverty. Of these, 22% lived in Miami-Dade County.Almost 24% of Miami-Dade County is characterized as poor, including 32.3% of children living in poverty (BEBR, 1999B).In 1998, the Florida homeownership rate was 66.9% compared to the City of Miami at 53.1%, the lowest of all the Floridalarge metropolitan statistical areas. The estimated daily homeless for the County (1997-98) was 5,260 individuals (BEBR,1999B).The Challenge for the County and the environs surrounding Biscayne Bay will be to increase employment andwages, while maintaining or enhancing the Bay and its natural and economic attributes. Increased education and skill levelsof the labor force could improve income distribution. Improved education and skill levels would help attract industries tothe County (FDLES, 2000).

C.3 Economic Sectors

Miami-Dade County is an international trading crossroads with imports and exports rising rapidly. Reflecting South Florida’sstrategic location, dozens of global companies have located their regional headquarters for Latin America and the Caribbeanin Miami-Dade County. Manufacturers, banks, wholesale trading firms and service companies are among the types of globalbusinesses with operations in the area (Beacon Council, 2000). Miami Dade, and the South Florida region in general, isconsidered a tourism mecca. The region is also an important agricultural center.

Manufacturing 7.17%

Trade 25.16%

Services34.49%

Total Government 14.00%


Agriculture 2.25% Construction & Mining 5.45%

Transportation, Commuications

& Public Utilities 5.03%

Figure 4b State of FloridaTotal Employment by Major Industry Categories–1999



Although Miami-Dade County’s economy is fairly diverse – including services, transportation, tourism, trade, andagriculture – growth has been concentrated in relatively low-paying service sector jobs. And while Miami-Dade benefitsgreatly from both international trade and tourism, these dynamic sectors have not allowed the County to keep pace with theState.

Figures 5a and 5b depict the earned income from the economic sectors for Miami-Dade County and for the State.

For both the County and the State, the services sector comprises approximately 40% of the earnings for the respectivejurisdictions followed by the trade sector with 22- 24%. Appendix I contains additional economic data charts for Miami-Dade County.

Figure 6 shows the percent change in employment by major industry sectors for Miami-Dade County and Florida for theperiod 1990-1999. Between 1990 and 1999, employment in the major industrial sectors in Florida grew by 30%, compared toMiami-Dade County’s diminished rate of 9.2%. The data shows some significant differences in job growth between theCounty and the State for the period. While the number of jobs in agriculture, construction/mining, and FIRE (finance,insurance, real estate) increased for the State, Miami-Dade had a decrease in these sectors. Additionally, employment inmanufacturing decreased more dramatically in Miami-Dade County (-20.5%) than it did in the State as a whole (-5.9).Lastly, the services sector had the greatest growth with over 60% for the State, but only 23.9% for the County. However, thissector was the fastest growing in both State and County levels for the period (FDLES, 2000).

The Service Industry

The service sector is a broad sector, ranging from professional services such as doctors, dentists, teachers and technicians tomechanics and repairmen to secretaries, truck drivers, laborers and fast food workers. This sector is also sensitive to tourist-related establishments such as lodgings, amusements and recreation activities. Overall, the sector employed 432,492 persons

Manufacturing 8.34%

Trade 25.16%

Services34.49%

Wholesale Trade 11.51%


Agriculture .48%

Mining .07%

Transportation 12.16%

Construction 4.37%

Retail Trade 11.97%

Figure 5a Miami-Dade Total Earned Income, 1997



Manufacturing 10.56%

Services40.08% Wholesale Trade 8.03%


Agriculture 1.23%

Mining .19%

Transportation 7.94%

Construction 7.17%

Retail Trade 13.84%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Man

ufac

turin

g

Tra

de

Ser

vice

s

Tot

al G

over

nmen

t

Fin

ance

, Ins

uran

ce&

Rea

l Est

ate

Agr

icul

ture

Con

stru

ctio

n &

Min

ing

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Com

mui

catio

ns&

Pub

lic U

tiliti

es

Florida

Miami-Dade

Industry Sector

Figure 5b State of Florida’s Total Earned Income, 1997


Figure 6 Percent Change in Employment by Major Industry Sector for Miami-Dade and Florida, 1990-1999



in Miami-Dade County in 1998, compared to 76,566 for manufacturing, 51,438 for construction, and 281,785 for wholesaleand retail trade (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 2000).

Employment is expected to continue to increase, shifting from the goods producing sector as manufacturing declines dueto international competition (Rust, 1998). Employment in manufacturing and goods-producing industries have historicallyprovided significantly higher wages than those in service-oriented enterprises (GCSSF, 1995). Average annual salaries inSouth Florida for 1997 were about $25K for jobs in the service sector, compared to $33K for manufacturing, $36K formining, and $27K for construction (FDLES, 1997).

TradeSouth Florida has emerged as a leading hub for trade within the global economy and as a result growth in international tradeand port activity has accelerated significantly. Trade also includes food stores, eating and drinking establishments andmiscellaneous retail - all of which are tourist-related. While trade between South Florida and Latin America remainssubstantial, emerging trade with Europe and the Far East provides a critical juncture for global distribution of goods throughSouth Florida ports (Loiry, 1995). Miami, in particular, has emerged as a leading city and “gateway” for trade within thishemisphere and the greater global economy. The Florida Department of Commerce estimates that each additional $1 billionof foreign trade creates approximately 16,000 additional jobs (University of Massachusetts, 1994).

TransportationThe Port of Miami, located on Biscayne Bay and known as the “Cruise Capital of the World,” is home to nearly 20 cruiseships, the largest home-ported cruise fleet in the world. The port also handles more “megaships” — vessels capable oftransporting more than 2,000 guests — than any other port in the world (Beacon Council, 2000). In 1999, the Port ofMiami handled 6.9 million tons of cargo and over 3 million passengers, representing a total economic impact of over $8.7billion to the local economy, and providing 45,000 jobs (Port of Miami and Beacon Council, 2000).

Tourism and trade depend on the ability of Florida’s airports to attract goods and passengers to the State. South Florida’sairport facilities have experienced growth into the 1990’s, largely due to merchandise trade between the South Floridaregion and Latin American/Caribbean markets (University of Massachusetts, 1994). Miami International is the fifth largestcargo airport and the ninth busiest passenger airport in the world (GCSSF, 1995 and Beacon Council, 2000). Airports arecritically important to the region’s tourist economy. Ninety-seven percent of Miami-Dade County’s overnight visitors arrivein South Florida by air (GCSSF, 1995). Miami International Airport’s economic impact on the County is approximately$13.2 billion (Beacon Council, 2000).

TourismSince the 1920s, tourism has been highly visible and constituted a major component of the South Florida economy. Al-though the annual growth in visitors began to decline in the 1990’s, South Florida continues to attract millions each year. In1994, southeast Florida attracted 13.4 million out-of-state visitors, or 33% of Florida’s total 41 million visitors (FloridaConsensus Estimating Conference, 1995). In 1996, tourism and recreation related taxable sales in Miami-Dade Countyalone amounted to almost $4.5 billion dollars (Joint Legislative Management Committee, 1998). Miami-Dade Countycollected over $20 million in 1997-98 in local option tourist development taxes (BEBR, 1999B). Miami-Dade County aloneattracted 9.4 million visitors who spent $8.4 billion (Working Group, 1998).

Water-based attractions, businesses and activities in Miami-Dade County offer a unique experience, many of which areBiscayne Bay-related. There are over 40 shoreline parks in Miami-Dade along Biscayne Bay and its tributaries. In the fiveyears prior to Hurricane Andrew, Biscayne National Park averaged 500,000 visitors a year. In 1994, this figure dropped to29,700 due to damages caused by Andrew. This small number of visitors generated $13 million in economic benefits to the


area (FAU/FIU, 1995). The number of visitors to BNP has increased since then to around 450,000 a year, generatingapproximately $200 million in economic benefits to the Miami-Dade economy. In addition, Everglades National Park isranked in the top five tourist destinations the nation, and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is the number onedive destination in the world (U.S. COE, 1998).Aggressive competition, image and safety concerns, and immigration eventsin Florida, however, threaten prosperity in tourism. Because tourism plays such a critical role in the economy, even modestdecreases in visitors and expenditures can be felt. For every 1,000 international visitors lost, the State loses $1.1 million intourism spending, 20 area jobs, and $295,000 in local payrolls (Cook, 1993). Figure 7 shows the typical expenditures per dayfor visitors to Florida by air.

Agriculture

Miami-Dade is the second largest agricultural producing county in the State after Palm Beach, and 39th out of 3,076 nation-ally, with total annual sales of $416.5 million (USDA, 1997). Agriculture in Miami-Dade has an economic impact ofapproximately $842 million and employs roughly 23,000 people (Degner, et. al. 1996). The South Dade area is renown forits tropical fruits, container plants and its harvest of corn, tomatoes and other row crops. The region also provides a welcomeinterruption to the urban landscape of the County by providing a multi-purpose land buffer between Everglades NationalPark and Biscayne Bay.

Although agriculture contributes billions of dollars to the State’s and the region’s economy, the industry is facingeconomic as well as environmental challenges. Agricultural acreage in Florida and across the nation has decreased as local,regional, and state economies have grown and diversified. Between 1982 and 1992, the number of acres designated asagricultural in South Florida has decreased from 12.8 million acres to 10.7 million acres, a loss of 16% (U.S. Dept. ofCommerce, 1984, 1994). This reduction stems from increasing urban sprawl, soil subsidence, and the conversion of some

Miscellaneous $6.40

Entertainment $18.30

Shopping $17.80

Room $32.00

Transportation $56.10

Food $26.90

Figure 7 Air Visitors - $157.30

Source BEBR, 1999B.


agricultural lands to other uses (Working Group, 1998).

Agriculture in South Florida has also been negatively impacted, especially the tomato industry, by trade agreementswith Mexico and other market factors. The impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement on the competitiveness ofdomestic products is a critical issue for all of the region’s industries. Manufacturers, producers, processors, and shippers warnof unfair advantages and a loss of their current competitive edge. They also express concern for the future normalization ofrelations with Cuba, especially as that country’s products enter the same market arena (FDOC, 1993). In spite of this trend,agriculture continues to demonstrate an ability to adjust by shifting to international markets, specialty products, anddomestic niche marketing (GCSSF, 1995).

C.4 Economic Activities Directly Related to Biscayne BayWhile the data previously presented corresponds to Miami-Dade County, and at times the entire South Florida region, thereexists a need to better understand the relationship between Biscayne Bay and a vibrant, South Florida economy. Examples ofeconomic activities that are directly dependent on a healthy bay ecosystem, and contribute to the local economy, include:65 fish and seafood establishments, with an annual payroll of $21.9 million; 64 boat dealers, with annual payroll of $14.9million; and 47 marinas, with annual payroll of $5.9 million (U.S. Census, 1993). Additionally, the 1995 Florida Depart-ment of Revenue statistics show that Miami-Dade County had gross sales of boats, motors, and equipment of $290 million,taxable sales of $123 million, and sales tax collected of $7.5 million. In 1991-1992, resident saltwater recreational fishingexpenditures in the County amounted to $157 million (FL. Sea Grant, SGR-112). While the expenditures for tourist anglersdirectly using Biscayne Bay is unavailable, they spent $1.3 billion throughout the State (FL. Sea Grant, SGR-111).

The Miami River is the largest tributary to Biscayne Bay. Economic activities along the Miami River are directlydependent on, and have a direct impact on, Biscayne Bay. There 32 privately owned shipping terminals on the river make itthe 5th largest port in State. These businesses handled approximately $4 billion in cargo in 1997, and trade with the Carib-bean and Central/S. America is projected to increase steadily. The River helps to generate a large number of direct andindirect jobs related to the marine industry. The Miami River’s waterfront is composed of marine industries, includingshippers, marinas, boatyards, fishing docks, seafood wholesalers and related services, and residential areas. The River posesan environmental threat to the Bay due to large concentration of toxics in the sediments (Miami River Study Commission,1998).

Agriculture in Miami-Dade is almost entirely concentrated in the south and west portions of the County. Many of thefarms are adjacent to the southern Bay, with a narrow strip of land, part of Biscayne National Park, separating the agricul-tural lands from the waters of Biscayne Bay. While the economy of agriculture is not directly dependant on Biscayne Bay,agricultural activities do have a direct impact on the Bay’s ecosystem. The vast system of canals that drain into the Bay fromthe inland sections of the County can potentially carry any runoff from farming activities. Likewise, agriculture couldindirectly depend on the health and vitality of the entire ecosystem for its own survival. Many of the ongoing restorationefforts in Miami-Dade and throughout South Florida recognize the interdependency between agriculture and a healthyecosystem.

The Port of Miami not only has a major impact on the County’s economy, but it also has an impact on the Bay’secology and geography. For several decades, the demands of the expanding port have necessitated the dredging of channels,removal of islands, and closing of waterways. The physical dynamics of the Bay are of vital importance to the port’s success,and some activities which may be considered to be environmentally unsound will nonetheless be needed to ensure theeconomic success of the port’s activities. Future decisions concerning alterations to the natural system of the Bay will needto weigh the economic impacts on the port with the environmental effects on the ecosystem.


C.5 ConclusionMiami-Dade County’s economy, though diversified, is unable to meet the demands of its growing population. The County’spopulation is projected to increase by nearly half a million in the next decade; with continued immigration expected fromthe Caribbean and Latin America, along with migration from other states, Miami-Dade’s population is likely to becomelarger, poorer, and more diverse. This influx of new citizens will need places to work, live, and play, thus increasing pressureon both the economy and the environment. Today, our economy is unable to provide good jobs for thousands of currentresidents, making Miami-Dade one of the poorest large counties in the nation. And while we do have important economicengines in the County (especially the airport and seaport), the growth they generate is relatively weak compared to the restof the State. Perhaps more importantly, what job growth there is tends to be concentrated in the low-paying service sector. Itseems clear, therefore, that Miami-Dade’s economy will continue to be a major concern for public officials as they try to findways to accommodate newcomers to our community over the next decade: they will have to create housing for new resi-dents, along with seeking ways to boost our low rate of homeownership; they will have to provide jobs for new residents,along with attempting to improve the quality and availability of jobs for existing residents; and they will have to provideparks, schools, roads and other public facilities for a growing population.

Accommodating population growth and improving our economy will undoubtedly put additional pressure on naturalresources, including Biscayne Bay. Although the relationship between Biscayne Bay and the economy of Miami-DadeCounty is not yet fully understood, some general conclusions are possible. Most obviously, more people living in the Countywill mean increased demand for water and increased demand for sewage treatment facilities. There will also be greaterpressure for access to the Bay, even though this Committee believes that access is inadequate for our existing population.Newcomers will have to be educated about using the Bay without damaging it. And it seems likely that a larger populationwill mean greater volumes of pollutants, both in the air and on the ground, which may end up in the Bay.

It is also likely that there will be increased pressure to use the Bay for productive economic purposes. Today, it appears asthough the most important direct economic impacts on the Bay are those found at the Port of Miami. Taken together, allBay-related activities in the County (shipping, marinas, boat dealers, river traffic) appear to make up 10 to 15 percent of theeconomy. Because our economy is weak and the demands facing it quite large, the use of the Bay for these water-related (andin some cases, water-dependent) activities will likely have to continue. Given the importance of these activities to oureconomy, there will probably be significant pressure to increase their intensity and perhaps their physical scope. However, inso far as that expansion is detrimental to the environment, it cannot proceed on a long-term basis.

This Committee foresees a time in the near future when public officials will pursue an even more aggressive program ofenvironmental restoration than they do now. This means that water-dependant economic activities will have to be madecompatible with the enhancement of the Bay ecosystem, or they will have to be discontinued; that can occur only if we findother productive economic activities to supplant water-dependant uses that stand in the way of Bay restoration. Publicofficials will need to develop long-term management plans, both for the Bay and for the economy, in order to meet this goal.

However, this Committee also strongly believes that public officials should encourage the use of the waterfront forcommercial and recreational purposes – especially the development of waterfront entertainment venues that are orientedtoward the Bay and in those areas that are already intensely developed – which are compatible with environmental restora-tion and enhancement. Where economic use is environmentally friendly, waterfront development can create jobs – whichare badly needed – and points of access for the public to enjoy the Bay. Other communities – San Francisco, Baltimore,Chattanooga, San Antonio, Boston, to name just a few – have made good economic use of their waterfronts withoutendangering the environment; we believe that Biscayne Bay provides an even greater opportunity for such development.

There are also economic activities surrounding the Bay which have an impact on the environment and these too mayhave to change as we move to aggressive environmental improvement. Currently, one of the primary economic uses of theBay is residential. Most of the waterfront at the northern end of Biscayne Bay has been turned over to homes. Such usegenerates private wealth (in the form of privately held property) and taxable real estate values for local governments.


Although the transformation of mangroves into waterfront property impacted the Bay, the damage has been done and itwould appear as though current residential use has few direct negative impacts on the condition of the Bay ecosystem (asidefrom a general contribution to non-point-source pollution). However, a privatized waterfront is clearly a barrier to habitatrestoration and greater public access. If we are serious about habitat restoration in the northern and central Bay, then publicofficials should purchase property, on a willing seller basis as such opportunities arise, to make way for mangroves, othernatural features, and public access points. This will require a multi-jurisdictional policy of incremental change directedtoward our long-term goal of increasing the extent of natural shoreline in the Bay. Although these changes may not occurfor several years, policymakers should prepare for them now.

After extensive discussions, this Committee believes that we should look well beyond water quality improvement withan ambitious program to increase natural habitat in broad stretches of the Bay – including the northern and central sectionsof the Bay. That goal may be compatible with continued use of the Bay for some economic purposes. Where economic useand environmental enhancement cannot be rendered compatible in the long run, however, public officials will need to findways for the economy to compensate for the loss of water-dependant activities. The current weakness of our local economy isa barrier to this sort of managed trade-off between use and enhancement, since we need as much economic growth as ourresources will allow. The longer our economy remains weak, the more difficult it will be to pursue the program we envision.Given the importance of the Bay, therefore, public officials must work strenuously to improve the condition of our economyand set the stage for the transformation of Biscayne Bay to a more pristine condition.


References for Economics Background MaterialsBeacon Council, Website, 2000.

Boswell, Thomas D.. and James R. Curtis, “The Hispanization of Metropolitan Miami” in South Florida, Winds of Change,edited by Thomas d. Boswell (UM). Prepared for the Annual conference of the Association of American Geographers,Miami, Florida, April 1991.

Bureau of Economic and Business Research , Florida Population Studies, University of Florida, Population Program, July,Volume 32, No. 3. Bulletin No. 124, 1999A.

Bureau of Economic and Business Research, 1999 Florida Statistical Abstract, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida,1999B.

Cook, Susan, and William Evans. 1993. A Portrait of Travel Industry Employment in the U.S. Economy, Travel IndustryAssociation of America Foundation.

Degner, R., Moss, Susan D., and Mulkey, David W., “Economic Impact of Agriculture and Agribusiness in Dade County,Florida,,” University of Florida, FAMRC Industry Report 97-1, August 1997.

FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems, “Economic Impact Study of Federal Interest Lands in SouthFlorida”, December, 1995.

Florida Consensus Estimating Conference. 1995. Economic Revenue and Budget Caseload Forecast, Book 1, Vol. X, Spring1995.

Florida Consensus Estimating Conference, Population and Demographic Forecast, January 2000.

Florida Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Florida and the North American Free Trade Agreement, July1993.

Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Jobs and Benefits, Bureau of Labor Market and Perfor-mance Information, ES 202, 1997.

Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Jobs and Benefits, Bureau of Labor Market and Perfor-mance Information, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Program, 1998.

Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Office of Labor Market Statistics, February 2000.

Florida Sea Grant Publication, SGR-111.

Florida Sea Grant Publication, SGR-112.

Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida. Initial Report, October 1995, Coral Gables, FL

Joint Legislative Management Committee, Division of Economic and Demographic Research, 1998.

Loiry, William, “Florida World Links – Trade and Investment Opportunities with the Four Dragons,” Florida Trend Magazine.April 95, Trend Magazines, Inc. St. Petersburg, FL

Miami River Study Commission, “The Miami River: A Call to Action,” January, 28, 1998.


Port of Miami, Marketing Division, 1/10/2000.

Rust, Rebecca. 1998. “Quality Communities Committee: Labor Market Conditions”

Presentation to the Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida, September 04, 1998 at the Anne Kolb NatureCenter, Hollywood FL. Bureau of Labor Market and Performance Information, Division of Jobs and Benefits, FloridaDepartment of Labor and Employment Security.

University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Studies, 1995 FirstQuarter Report, 1994.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District. 1998.

Overview: Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study, October 1998.

U.S. Census Bureau. Current Population Reports, Population Projections: States, 1995- 2025, May 1997.

U.S. Census Bureau, “Population Estimates Program,” Population Division, Washington, DC, 1999.

U.S. Census Bureau, 1993.

U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income Poverty Estimates Program, 1995.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System , June 2000.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1984 Census of Agriculture, 1984.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1994 Census of Agriculture, 1994.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Economic Census 1992.

Working Group of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. 1998. Success In The Making: An Integrated Plan ForSouth Florida Ecosystem Restoration and Sustainability, April, 1998.


APPENDicesEconomic information tables and graphs


Sour

ce: T

he B

eaco

n C

ounc

il, 2

000.

05

00

01

00

00

15

00

02

00

00

25

00

03

00

00

35

00

04

00

00

Mia

mi-D

ade

Cou

nty

Pub

lic S

choo

ls

Mia

mi-D

ade

Cou

nty

Fed

eral

Gov

ernm

ent

Sta

te o

f Flo

rida

Jack

son

Mem

oria

l Hos

pita

l

City

of M

iam

i

Flo

rida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity

Mia

mi V

A M

edic

al C

ente

r

Mia

mi-D

ade

Com

mun

ity C

olle

ge

City

of M

iam

i Bea

ch

City

of H

iahl

eah

Uni

ted

Sta

te S

outh

ern

Com

man

d

City

of C

oral

Gab

les

City

of N

orth

Mia

mi B

each

City

of N

orth

Mia

mi

US

Coa

st G

uard

City

of H

omes

tead

Mia

mi-D

ade

Cou

nty

Top

Pub

lic S

ecto

r E

mpl

oyer

sCompany

Em

ploy

ees


Company

Em

ploy

ees

Sour

ce: T

he B

eaco

n C

ounc

il, 2

000.

01

00

02

00

03

00

04

00

05

00

06

00

07

00

08

00

0

Am

eric

an A

irlin

es

Uni

vers

ity o

f Mia

mi

Bap

tist H

ealth

Sys

tem

s of

Sou

th F

lorid

a

Pre

cisi

on R

espo

nse

Cor

pora

tion

Bel

lSou

th

Flo

rida

Pow

er &

Lig

ht C

o.

Pub

lix S

uper

Mar

kets

, Inc

.

K-M

art

Mt.

Sin

ai M

edic

al C

ente

r of

Gre

ater

Mia

mi

Win

n-D

ixie

Sto

res,

Inc.

Uni

ted

Airl

ines

Roy

al C

arrib

ean

Inte

rnat

iona

l/Cel

ebrit

y C

ruis

es

Sea

rs R

oebu

ck &

Co.

CA

C-U

nite

d H

ealth

care

Pla

n of

Flo

rida

Bec

kman

Cou

lter

Cor

p.

Cor

dis

Cor

p.

Firs

t Uni

on N

atio

nal B

ank

of F

lorid

a

90

00

10

00

0

Nat

ions

Ban

k

Mia

mi C

hild

ren’

s H

ospi

tal

Van

guar

d S

ecur

ity, I

nc.

Mia

mi-D

ade

Cou

nty

Top

Pri

vate

Sec

tor

Em

ploy

ers


Southeast FloridaAnnual Taxable Sales By Major Category ($Millions)1980-96

County: Miami-Dade County

Autos & Other Tourlsm & Non- Constr- Business

Year Total Access- Durables Recre- durables uction Invest-

ories ation ment

1980 11,391.9 1,651.1 700.3 2,168.2 3,562.1 1,091.1 2,219.1

1981 12 351.8 1,771.7 750.2 2,209.0 3,975.5 1,123.1 2,522.3

1982 11648.5 1,692.5 658.4 2,139.0 3,816.5 1,001.3 2,340.8

1983 12,075.5 1,896.5 686.7 2,192.0 3,941.3 925.5 2,433.5

1984 12,992.8 2,084.0 783.9 2,313.3 4,332.0 953.9 2,525.7

1985 14,018.3 2,255.9 852.6 2,408.4 4,854.7 1,081.3 2,565.4

1986 15,235.3 2,500.0 943.2 2,640.6 5,198.7 1,181.1 2,771.7

1987 17,076.6 2,584.7 1,087.4 2,923.1 5,852.5 1,409.2 3,219.7

1988 17,910.0 2,856.6 1,146.3 3,216.3 5,939.2 1,375.4 3,376.2

1989 18,134.1 2,686.2 1,178.8 3,389.1 6,114.6 1,368.6 3,396.8

1990 18,421.2 2,624.7 1,241.6 3,587.8 6,427.6 1,028.3 3,511.2

1991 18,144.6 2,572.1 1,203.4 3,686.4 6,482.4 904.6 3,295.7

1992 19,929.3 3,050.0 1,407.2 3,963.3 6,991.4 1,116.0 3,401.4

1993 22,060.0 3,426.4 1,700.0 4,114.5 7,625.8 1,450.9 3,742.4

1994 21,524.5 3,344.4 1,584.7 4,088.3 7,580.2 1,188.7 3,738.2

1995 22 465.7 3,547.5 1,650.3 4,260.0 7,901.7 1,153.5 3,952.7

1996 23 559.8 3,710.7 1,888.0 4,469.0 8,2532 1,136.3 4,102.6

Growth 1980-96

$ millions 12,167.9 2,059.6 1,187.7 2,300.8 4,691.1 45.2 1,883.5

% 206.81 224.74 269.60 206.12 231.69 104.14 184.88

Source. Joint Legislative Management Committee, Division of Economic and Demographic Research. This table prepared bythe South Florida Regional Planning Council. Sfmsatax.xls(Annual)/1, 20-08-98


Miami-Dade County1997 Economic CensusSummary Profile by Economic Sector

NAICS Annual Shipments/Industry Industry Number of Number of Payroll Sales/ReceiptsCode Description Establishments Employees ($1000) ($1000)

NAICS INDUSTRIES31-33 Manufacturing 3,031 66,391 1,663,790 8,523,90642 Wholesale trade 8,935 70,050 2,235,901 43,604,36344-45 Retail trade 9,814 110,292 1,995,825 20,720,56753 Real estate & rental & leasing 3,378 19,793 465,766 2,853,93954 Professional, scientific, & technical services 7,821 42,781 1,855,966 4,640,04356 Administrative & support & waste 3,336 71,916 1,319,742 2,867,483

management & remediation service61 Educational services 340 2,412 52,852 188,05362 Health care & social assistance 6,157 60,718 1,877,500 4,782,53171 Arts, entertainment, & recreation 546 6,853 222,708 765,14572 Accommodation & food-services 3,835 75,597 878,468 3,199,45381 Other services (except public administration) 3,901 22,435 385,773 1,390,964

NON-TAXABLE INDUSTRIES54 Professional, scientific, & technical services 36 302 9,744 28,90261 Educational services 40 316 8,928 23,04362 Health care & social assistance 454 41,786 1,312,688 2,811,50571 Arts, entertainment, & recreation 73 2,762 44,676 126,20981 Other services (except public administration) 988 6,317 130,884 870,023

MERCHANT WHOLESALERS42 Wholesale trade 8,171 63,757 1,970,814 35,347,386MANUFACTURERS’ SALES BRANCHES AND SALES OFFICES42 Wholesale trade 161 4,231 194,438 6,152,712AGENTS, BROKERS, AND COMMISSION MERCHANTS42 Wholesale trade 603 2,062 70,649 2,104,265

Note: NAICS INDUSTRIES is defined as the taxable portion of the Services sectors, the Type of Operation Totals for theWholesale sector, and all other sectors in the Economic Census. Excludes data for auxiliaries. Data in this table arc subject toemployment-and/or sales-size minimums that vary by geographic level. All survey and census results contain measurementerror and may contain sampling error. Information about these potential errors is provided or referenced with the data or thesource of the data. The Census Bureau recommends that data users incorporate this information into their analyses as theseerrors could impact inferences. Researchers analyzing data to create their own estimates are responsible for the validity ofthose estimates and should not cite the Census Bureau as the source of the estimates but only as the source of the core data.We have modified some data to protect individuals privacy, but in a way that preserves the usefulness of the data.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997 Economic Census.This table prepared by the South Florida Regional Planning Council 97ect1sf.xls (Miami-Dade)/1, 03-08-00


FASTEST-GROWING INDUSTRIES*AREA: FLORIDA - MIAMI-DADE COUNTY

EMPLOYMENTINDUSTRY BASE YEAR PROJECTED CHANGE

RANK CODE TITLE 1997 2007 TOTAL PERCENT

1 89 Miscellaneous Business Services 674 1,119 445 66.022 78 Motion Pictures 2,642 4,124 1,482 56.093 47 Transportation Services 13,637 18,223 4,586 33.634 73 Business Services 69,724 92,017 22,293 31.975 62 Security and Commodity Brokers 3,695 4,874 1,179 31.916 87 Engineering and Management Services 25,220 32,910 7,690 30.497 57 Furniture and Homefurnishings Stores 9,667 12,241 2,574 26.638 44 Water Transportation 8,625 10,837 2,212 25.659 07 Agricultural Services 7,930 9,950 2,020 25.4710 83 Social Services 15,180 18,851 3,671 24.1811 79 Amusement and Recreation Services 11,932 14,733 2,801 23.4712 61 Nondepository Institutions 4,598 5,623 1.025 22.2913 45 Transportation by Air 29,950 36,603 6,653 22.2114 81 Legal Services 14,743 17,856 3,113 21.1215 82 Educational Services 16,670 20,184 3,514 21.0816 41 Local and Interurban Transit 2,719 3,210 491 18.0617 63 Insurance Carriers 10,179 11,965 1,786 17.5518 80 Health Services 87,698 103,013 15,315 17.4619 50 Wholesale Trade, Durable Goods 46,379 54,275 7,896 17.0220 59 Miscellaneous Retail Stores 25,042 29,255 4,213 16.82

*This table includes industries with a minimum total change of 250 jobs.

Source: Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Office of Labor Market Statistics.Florida Industry and Occupational Employment Projections to 2007


INDUSTRIES GAINING THE MOST NEW JOBSAREA: FLORIDA - MIAMI-DADE COUNTY

EMPLOYMENTINDUSTRY BASE YEAR PROJECTED CHANGE

RANK CODE TITLE 1997 2007 TOTAL PERCENT

1 73 Business SeNices 69,724 92,017 22,293 31.972 80 Health Servkes 07,698 103,013 15,315 17.483 93 Local Govemment 99,245 112,103 12,858 12.964 50 Wholesale Trade, Durable Goods 46,379 54,275 7,896 17.025 87 Engineering and Management Services 25,220 32,910 7,690 30.496 58 Eating and Drinking Places 54,501 61,256 6,755 12.397 45 Transportation by Air 29,950 36,603 6,653 22.218 47 Transportation Services 13,637 18,223 4,586 33.639 59 Miscellaneous Retail Stores 25,042 29,2S5 4,213 16.8210 83 Social Services 15,180 18,851 3,671 24.1811 82 Educatbnal Services 16,670 20,184 3,514 21.0812 51 Vvholesale Trade, Nondurable Goods 35,567 38,769 3,202 9.0013 81 Legal Services 14,743 17,856 3,113 21.1214 54 Food Siores 29,750 32,559 2,809 9.4415 79 ArnusementandRecreationServices 11,932 14,733 2,801 23.4716 57 Fumiture and Homefumishings Stores 9,667 12,241 2,574 26.6317 65 Real Estate 20,873 23,099 2,226 10.6618 44 Water Transportation 8,625 10,837 2,212 25.6519 07 Agricultural Services 7,930 9,950 2,020 25.4720 92 State Govemment 17,967 19,767 1,800 10.02

Source: Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Office of Labor Market Statistics.Florida Industry and Occupational Employment Projections to 2007


FAS

TES

T-G

RO

WIN

G O

CC

UPA

TIO

NS

AR

EA

: FLO

RID

A -

MIA

MI-D

AD

E C

OU

NTY

EM

PLO

YM

EN

TAV

ER

AG

E A

NN

UA

L O

PE

NIN

GS

AVE

RA

GE

OC

CU

PATI

ON

BA

SE

YE

AR

PR

OJE

CTE

DC

HA

NG

ED

UE

TO

DU

E T

OW

AG

ER

AN

KC

OD

ETI

TLE

1997

2007

TOTA

LP

ER

CE

NT

TOTA

LG

RO

WTH

SE

PAR

ATIO

NS

1998

($)

134

026

Cam

era

Ope

rato

r, Te

levi

sion

and

Mov

ies

197

323

126

63.9

616

133

9.78

222

127

Com

pute

r Eng

inee

r 7

121,

158

446

62.6

449

454

25.2

83

2510

4C

ompu

ter S

uppo

rt S

peci

alis

t2,

271

3,39

51,

124

49.4

912

611

214

17.3

34

5600

8M

ail M

achi

ne O

pera

tor

676

1,00

933

349

.26

5333

208.

715

2510

2S

yste

ms

Ana

lyst

3,05

74,

527

1,47

048

.09

166

147

1924

.28

631

317

Inst

ruct

or, N

onvo

catio

nal E

duca

tion

1,13

31,

674

541

47.7

566

5412

14.7

37

5600

5D

uplic

atin

g M

achi

ne O

pera

tor

449

655

206

45.8

834

2113

8.87

815

032

Law

n S

ervi

ce M

anag

er40

959

518

645

.48

2219

312

.34

934

056

Pro

duce

r, D

irect

or, A

ctor

, Ent

erta

iner

955

1,38

442

944

.92

6443

2118

.13

1032

302

Res

pira

tory

The

rapi

st93

11,

338

407

43.7

255

4114

17.7

011

3292

5C

ardi

olog

y Te

chno

logi

st26

938

211

342

.01

1811

717

.57

1297

808

Par

king

Lot

Atte

ndan

t1,

151

1,62

847

741

.44

6848

206.

5013

4902

6Te

lem

arke

ter,

Doo

r-To

-Doo

r Sal

es,

8,41

911

,828

3,40

940

.49

558

341

217

12.2

9S

treet

Ven

dor

1466

011

Hom

e H

ealth

Aid

e3,

507

4,86

51,

358

38.7

218

513

649

8.26

1553

802

Trav

el C

lerk

364

499

135

37.0

922

148

16.3

016

7980

6Ve

terin

ary

Ass

ista

nt34

847

612

836

.78

1813

58.

2317

9751

7O

rdin

ary

Sea

men

and

Mar

ine

Oile

r30

441

210

835

.53

2311

1211

.89

1827

302

Soc

ial W

orke

r, M

edic

al a

nd P

sych

iatri

c1,

953

2,61

666

333

.95

9166

2516

.54

1953

123

Adj

ustm

ent C

lerk

4,04

85,

368

1,32

032

.61

158

132

2611

.02

2068

021

Ush

er, L

obby

Atte

ndan

t, Ti

cket

Tak

er69

992

622

732

.47

3623

136.

5021

2111

1Ta

x P

repa

rer

1,12

81,

494

366

32.4

562

3725

14.8

722

6601

7P

hysi

cal,

Cor

rect

ive

Ther

apy

Ass

ista

nt69

792

122

432

.14

3922

1713

.79

2334

005

Tech

nica

l Writ

er54

771

817

131

.26

3117

1419

.44

2432

114

Vete

rinar

ian,

Vet

erin

ary

Insp

ecto

r40

553

012

530

.86

2113

829

.44

2555

302

Ste

nogr

aphe

r1,

009

1,32

031

130

.82

4731

1614

.42

2627

307

Res

iden

tial C

ouns

elor

538

703

165

30.6

729

1712

9.13

2734

058

Ath

lete

, Coa

ch, U

mpi

re a

nd R

elat

ed61

079

618

630

.49

4119

2219

.03

2825

103

Dat

abas

e A

dmin

istra

tor

544

709

165

30.3

326

179

23.

2997

514

Abl

e S

eam

an37

749

111

430

.24

2511

1413

.

Sou

rce:

Flo

rida

Dep

artm

ent o

f Lab

or a

nd E

mpl

oym

ent S

ecur

ity, O

ffice

of L

abor

Mar

ket S

tatis

tics.

Flor

ida

Indu

stry

and

Occ

upat

iona

l Em

ploy

men

t Pro

ject

ions

to 2

007


FAS

TES

T-G

RO

WIN

G O

CC

UPA

TIO

NS

*A

RE

A: F

LOR

IDA

- M

IAM

I-DA

DE

CO

UN

TY

EM

PLO

YM

EN

TA V

ER

AG

E A

NN

UA

L O

PE

NIN

GS

AVE

RA

GE

OC

CU

PATI

ON

BA

SE

YE

AR

PR

OJE

CTE

DC

HA

NG

ED

UE

TO

DU

E T

OW

AG

ER

AN

KC

OD

ETI

TLE

1997

2007

TOTA

LP

ER

CE

NT

TOTA

LG

RO

WTH

SE

PAR

ATIO

NS

1998

($)

3022

126

Ele

ctric

al a

nd E

lect

roni

c E

ngin

eer

1,64

32,

135

492

29.9

584

4935

24.1

131

3151

7In

stru

ctio

nal C

oord

inat

or38

549

911

429

.61

1511

417

.50

3285

705

Dat

a P

roce

ssin

g E

quip

men

t Rep

aire

r47

261

113

929

.45

2114

715

.47

3368

035

Per

sona

l Hom

e C

are

Aid

e92

41,

193

269

29.1

151

2724

8.70

3443

017

Sal

es A

gent

. Bus

ines

s S

ervi

ces

3,22

14,

157

936

29.0

616

094

6618

.73

3566

005

Med

ical

Ass

ista

nt2,

964

3,80

884

428

.48

157

8473

10.8

736

5312

8B

roke

rage

Cle

rk35

545

610

128

.45

1510

512

.96

3732

928

Sur

gica

l Tec

hnic

ian

616

787

171

27.7

632

1715

12.0

538

3402

8B

road

cast

Tec

hnic

ian

660

841

181

27.4

253

1835

14.1

039

2730

8H

uman

Ser

vice

s W

orke

r1,

680

2,13

645

627

.14

8946

4312

.07

4055

332

Inte

rvie

win

g C

lerk

, Exc

. Per

sonn

el1,

539

1,95

041

126

.71

9041

499.

4441

9750

2C

apta

in47

159

412

326

.11

3012

1815

.98

4249

034

Dem

onst

rato

r and

Pro

duct

Pro

mot

er 6

5882

917

125

.99

3517

187.

5943

1301

7E

ngin

eerin

g, S

cien

ce,

1,39

71,

758

361

25.8

460

3624

32.0

6C

omp.

Sys

tem

s M

anag

er44

3291

1M

edic

al R

ecor

ds T

echn

icia

n1,

091

1,36

827

725

.39

5528

2710

.00

4532

514

Opt

icia

n, D

ispe

nsin

g an

d M

easu

ring

475

594

119

25.0

518

126

14.2

346

6600

2D

enta

l Ass

ista

nt1,

743

2,17

242

924

.61

7043

2711

.19

4731

321

Inst

ruct

or a

nd C

oach

. Spo

rts1,

515

1,87

636

123

.83

5236

1612

.59

4879

041

Labo

rer,

Land

scap

er, G

roun

dske

eper

8,12

410

,051

1,92

723

.72

435

193

242

7.82

4934

035

Arti

st a

nd C

omm

erci

al A

rtist

3,07

03,

788

718

23.3

913

572

6315

.50

5032

511

Phy

sici

an A

ssis

tant

759

936

177

23.3

231

1813

21.8

451

1500

8M

edic

ine

and

Hea

lth S

ervi

ce M

anag

er1,

704

2.09

839

423

.12

6939

3025

.47

5263

035

Det

ectiv

e an

d In

vest

igat

or52

564

512

022

.86

2512

1312

.79

5332

908

Den

tal H

ygie

nist

1,09

41,

343

249

22.7

650

2525

22.4

354

6802

6Fl

ight

Atte

ndan

t1,

242

1,52

328

122

.62

5528

2718

.99

5543

014

Sec

uriti

es, F

inan

cial

Ser

vice

Sal

es2,

825

3,46

463

922

.62

8564

2128

.50

5634

008

Pub

lic R

elat

ions

Spe

cial

ist

1,24

91,

531

282

22.5

875

2847

16.7

857

3131

4Te

ache

r, V

ocat

iona

l Edu

catio

n2,

834

3,45

862

422

.02

9262

3015

.58

5350

8B

ill a

nd A

ccou

nt C

olle

ctor

2,48

93,

034

545

21.9

012

155

6611

.

*Thi

s ta

ble

incl

udes

occ

upat

ions

with

a m

inim

um to

tal c

hang

e of

100

jobs

.

Sou

rce:

Flo

rida

Dep

artm

ent o

f Lab

or a

nd E

mpl

oym

ent S

ecur

ity, O

ffice

of L

abor

Mar

ket S

tatis

tics.

Flo

rida

Indu

stry

and

Occ

upat

iona

l Em

ploy

men

t Pro

ject

ions

to20

07


FAS

TES

T-G

RO

WIN

G O

CC

UPA

TIO

NS

*A

RE

A: F

LOR

IDA

- M

IAM

I-DA

DE

CO

UN

TY

EM

PLO

YM

EN

TAV

ER

AG

E A

NN

UA

L O

PE

NIN

GS

AVE

RA

GE

OC

CU

PATI

ON

BA

SE

YE

AR

PR

OJE

CTE

DC

HA

NG

ED

UE

TO

DU

E T

OW

AG

ER

AN

KC

OD

ETI

TLE

1997

2007

TOTA

LP

ER

CE

NT

TOTA

LG

RO

WTH

SE

PAR

ATIO

NS

1998

($)

5985

323

Airc

raft

Mec

hani

c2,

426

2,95

753

121

.89

101

5348

16.9

160

5801

1Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Age

nt48

659

110

521

.60

1411

313

.40

6132

508

Em

erge

ncy

Med

ical

Tec

hnic

ian

1,24

51,

511

266

21.3

758

2731

11.4

862

5380

5R

eser

vatio

n an

d Tr

ansp

orta

tion

6,30

67,

640

1,33

421

.15

266

133

133

12.1

9Ti

cket

Age

nt63

1301

4A

dmin

istra

tive

Ser

vice

Man

ager

2,84

43,

445

601

21.1

311

060

5020

.19

6479

017

Ani

mal

Car

etak

er, E

xcep

t Far

m1,

014

1,22

821

421

.10

3621

158.

94

6555

305

Rec

eptio

nist

, Inf

orm

atio

n C

lerk

12,9

6915

,691

2,72

220

.99

520

272

248

9.15

6632

308

Phy

sica

l The

rapi

st1,

085

1,31

222

720

.92

3923

1627

.71

6734

038

Des

igne

r, E

xc. I

nter

ior D

esig

ner

2,51

63,

040

524

20.8

389

5237

14.9

268

4302

1Tr

avel

Age

nt2,

363

2,85

549

220

.82

9949

5010

.29

6955

102

Lega

l Sec

reta

ry4,

329

5,21

588

620

.47

160

8971

15.8

170

2830

5P

aral

egal

1,99

02,

396

406

20.4

058

4117

19.3

471

3404

1In

terio

r Des

igne

r67

280

913

720

.39

2414

1029

.11

7255

314

Hum

an R

esou

rces

Ass

ista

nt,

1,56

61,

880

314

20.0

561

3130

11.7

5E

xcep

t Pay

roll

7327

311

Rec

reat

ion

Wor

ker

1,56

31,

876

313

20.0

372

3141

10.9

174

6801

4A

mus

emen

t and

Rec

reat

ion

Atte

ndan

t2,

240

2,68

844

820

.00

8645

416.

6375

1300

5H

uman

Res

ourc

es M

anag

er1,

533

1,83

930

619

.96

6731

3619

.71

7643

005

Bro

ker,

Rea

l Est

ate

622

745

123

19.7

725

1213

23.8

977

3230

5O

ccup

atio

nal T

hera

pist

609

729

120

19.7

021

129

25.1

378

1501

1P

rope

rty a

nd R

eal E

stat

e M

anag

er3,

244

3,87

663

219

.48

107

6344

17.9

379

3405

1M

usic

ian,

Inst

rum

enta

l1,

140

1,36

222

219

.47

4622

2412

.87

8097

947

Indu

stria

l Tru

ck a

nd T

ract

or O

pera

tor

2,19

72,

623

426

19.3

969

4326

10.4

381

2190

5M

anag

emen

t Ana

lyst

2,27

02,

701

431

18.9

961

4318

23.9

182

6304

7G

uard

12,4

8814

,855

2,36

718

.95

549

237

312

7.81

8313

011

Mar

ketin

g, A

dv.,

Pub

lic R

elat

ions

Man

ager

3,87

84,

597

719

18.5

412

672

5426

.62

8457

302

Mai

l Cle

rk, E

xc. M

ail M

achi

ne93

51,

108

173

18.5

039

1722

8.26

8543

011

Rea

l Est

ate

App

rais

er68

981

612

718

.43

2713

1415

.01

8698

705

Ref

use

Col

lect

or69

081

712

718

.41

4013

2711

.68

8722

511

Mec

hani

cal E

ngin

eerin

g Te

chni

cian

664

786

122

18.3

726

1214

16.4

5

*Thi

s ta

ble

incl

udes

occ

upat

ions

with

a m

inim

um to

tal c

hang

e of

100

jobs

.

Sou

rce:

Flo

rida

Dep

artm

ent o

f Lab

or a

nd E

mpl

oym

ent S

ecur

ity, O

ffice

of L

abor

Mar

ket S

tatis

tics.

Flor

ida

Indu

stry

and

Occ

upat

iona

l Em

ploy

men

t Pro

ject

ions

to 2

007


FAS

TES

T-G

RO

WIN

G O

CC

UPA

TIO

NS

*A

RE

A: F

LOR

IDA

- M

IAM

I-DA

DE

CO

UN

TY

EM

PLO

YM

EN

TAV

ER

AG

E A

NN

UA

L O

PE

NIN

GS

AVE

RA

GE

OC

CU

PATI

ON

BA

SE

YE

AR

PR

OJE

CTE

DC

HA

NG

ED

UE

TO

DU

E T

OW

AG

ER

AN

KC

OD

ETI

TLE

1997

2007

TOTA

LP

ER

CE

NT

TOTA

LG

RO

WTH

SE

PAR

ATIO

NS

1998

($)

8827

305

Soc

ial W

orke

r, E

xc. M

edic

al2,

435

2,88

144

618

.32

7745

3214

.23

and

Psy

chia

tric

8934

047

Mus

ic D

irect

or, S

inge

r, an

d R

elat

ed76

290

113

918

.24

3014

169.

8990

3130

3Te

ache

r, P

resc

hool

and

Kin

derg

arte

n3,

851

4,54

369

217

.97

151

6982

7.27

9166

008

Nur

sing

Aid

e an

d O

rder

ly7,

782

9,17

41,

392

17.8

924

713

910

88

2692

2212

1C

ivil

Eng

inee

r, In

clud

ing

Traf

fic1,

315

1,55

023

517

.87

4924

2525

77

9321

511

Per

sonn

el, T

rain

ing,

Lab

or R

el. S

peci

alis

t2,

061

2,42

536

417

.66

9136

5516

.51

9415

023

Com

mun

icat

ion,

Tra

nspo

rt., U

tility

Man

ager

1,79

52,

111

316

17.6

063

3231

22.6

095

8570

2Te

leph

one

and

Cab

le T

V In

stal

ler/R

epai

rer

873

1,02

615

317

.53

4315

2812

.60

9658

005

Dis

patc

her:

Exc

. Pol

ice,

Fire

, Am

bula

nce

1,50

41,

765

261

17.3

550

2624

11.6

897

6803

8C

hild

Car

e W

orke

r6,

185

7,23

91,

054

17.0

416

610

561

7.03

9832

919

Rad

iolo

gic

Tech

nici

an1,

545

1,80

626

116

.89

4826

2216

.36

9958

026

Ord

er F

iller

, Sal

es2,

238

2,61

537

716

.85

9238

548.

0710

097

105

Truc

k D

river

, Lig

ht15

,615

18,2

442,

629

16.8

448

726

322

49.

74

Thi

s ta

ble

incl

udes

occ

upat

ions

with

a m

inim

um to

tal c

hang

e of

100

jobs

.

Sou

rce:

Flo

rida

Dep

artm

ent o

f Lab

or a

nd E

mpl

oym

ent S

ecur

ity, O

ffice

of L

abor

Mar

ket S

tatis

tics.

Flor

ida

Indu

stry

and

Occ

upat

iona

l Em

ploy

men

t Pro

ject

ions

to 2

007


OC

CU

PATI

ON

S G

AIN

ING

TH

E M

OS

T N

EW

JO

BS

AR

EA

: FLO

RID

A- M

IAM

I-DA

DE

CO

UN

TY

EM

PLO

YM

EN

TAV

ER

AG

E A

NN

UA

L O

PE

NIN

GS

AVE

RA

GE

OC

CU

PATI

ON

BA

SE

YE

AR

PR

OJE

CTE

DC

HA

NG

ED

UE

TO

DU

E T

OW

AG

ER

AN

KC

OD

ETI

TLE

1997

2007

TOTA

LP

ER

CE

NT

TOTA

LG

RO

WTH

SE

PAR

ATIO

NS

1998

($)

155

347

Gen

eral

Offi

ce C

lerk

27,3

5831

,785

4,42

716

.18

1,20

144

375

89.

952

1900

5G

ener

al M

anag

er a

nd T

op E

xecu

tive

29,3

8433

,388

4,00

413

.63

915

400

515

28.3

23

4901

1S

ales

pers

on, R

etai

l35

,411

39,1

883,

777

10.6

71,

578

378

1,20

09.

094

4902

6Te

lem

arke

ter,D

oor-

To-D

oorS

ales

,8,

419

11,8

283,

409

40.4

955

834

121

712

.29

Stre

et V

endo

r5

4902

3C

ashi

er23

,145

26,2

213,

076

13.2

91,

317

308

1,00

97.

066

3250

2R

egis

tere

d N

urse

18,8

0721

,781

2,97

415

.81

607

297

310

22.1

27

5530

5R

ecep

tioni

st In

form

atio

n C

lerk

12,9

6915

,691

2,72

220

.99

520

272

248

9.15

897

105

Truc

k D

river

Lig

ht15

,615

18,2

442,

629

16.8

448

726

322

49.

749

6304

7G

uard

12,4

8814

,855

2,36

718

.95

549

237

312

7.81

1079

041

Labo

rer,

Land

scap

er, G

roun

dske

eper

8,12

410

,051

1,92

723

.72

435

193

242

7.82

1165

041

Food

Pre

para

tion

Ser

ver,

Fast

Foo

d13

,164

14,9

711,

807

13.7

390

618

172

56.

5212

4900

8S

ales

Rep

., N

onsc

ient

ific,

Exc

. Ret

ail

13,3

9414

,933

1,53

911

.49

481

154

327

15.2

613

211

14A

ccou

ntan

t and

Aud

itor

9,29

510

,830

1,53

516

.51

298

154

144

21.6

614

2510

2S

yste

ms

Ana

lyst

3,05

74,

527

1,47

048

.09

166

147

1924

.28

1531

305

Teac

her,

Ele

men

tary

9,68

511

,115

1,43

014

.77

367

143

224

16.4

016

5510

8S

ecre

tary

, Exc

. Leg

al a

nd M

edic

al20

,863

22,2

661,

403

6.72

480

140

340

11.6

217

6600

8N

ursi

ng A

ide

and

Ord

erly

7,78

29,

174

1,39

217

.89

247

139

108

8.26

1866

011

Hom

e H

ealth

Aid

e3,

507

4,86

51,

358

38.7

218

513

649

8.26

1931

308

Teac

her,

Sec

onda

ry S

choo

l9,

178

10,5

241,

346

14.6

743

013

529

523

.28

2053

805

Res

erva

tion

and

Tran

spor

tatio

n6,

306

7,64

01,

334

21.1

526

613

313

312

.19

Tick

et A

gent

2153

123

Adj

ustm

ent C

lerk

4,04

85,

368

1,32

032

.61

158

132

2611

.02

2285

132

Mai

nten

ance

Rep

aire

r, G

ener

al U

tility

9,58

210

,723

1,14

111

.91

329

114

215

10.2

823

6500

8W

aite

r and

Wai

tress

15,4

0216

,537

1,13

57.

3796

211

484

86.

3824

2510

4C

ompu

ter S

uppo

rt S

peci

alis

t2,

271

3,39

51,

124

49.4

912

611

214

17.3

325

6503

8Fo

od P

repa

ratio

n W

orke

r8,

935

10,0

301,

095

12.2

660

211

049

27.

0226

6700

5Ja

nito

r and

Cle

aner

14,0

4115

,128

1,08

77.

7441

410

930

57.

1527

6803

8C

hild

Car

e W

orke

r6,

185

7,23

91,

054

17.0

416

610

561

7.03

2828

108

Law

yer

9,66

910

,722

1,05

310

.89

211

105

106

37.3

629

5802

3S

tock

Cle

rk, S

tock

room

or W

areh

ouse

7,38

98,

411

1,02

213

.83

214

102

112

8.62

Sou

rce:

Flo

rida

Dep

artm

ent o

f Lab

or a

nd E

mpl

oym

ent S

ecur

ity, O

ffice

of L

abor

Mar

ket S

tatis

tics.

Flor

ida

Indu

stry

and

Occ

upat

iona

l Em

ploy

men

t Pro

ject

ions

to 2

007


OC

CU

PATI

ON

S G

AIN

ING

TH

E M

OS

T N

EW

JO

BS

*A

RE

A: F

LOR

IDA

- MIA

MI-D

AD

E C

OU

NTY

EM

PLO

YM

EN

TAV

ER

AG

E A

NN

UA

L O

PE

NIN

GS

AVE

RA

GE

OC

CU

PATI

ON

BA

SE

YE

AR

PR

OJE

CTE

DC

HA

NG

ED

UE

TO

DU

E T

OW

AG

ER

AN

KC

OD

ETI

TLE

1997

2007

TOTA

LP

ER

CE

NT

TOTA

LG

RO

WTH

SE

PAR

ATIO

NS

1998

($)

3043

017

Sal

es A

gent

, Bus

ines

s S

ervi

ces

3,22

14,

157

936

29.0

616

094

6618

.73

3155

102

Lega

l Sec

reta

ry4,

329

5,21

588

620

.47

160

8971

15.8

132

6600

5M

edic

al A

ssis

tant

2,96

43,

808

844

28.4

815

784

7310

.87

3358

028

Traf

fic, S

hipp

ing,

and

Rec

eivi

ng C

lerk

9,07

59,

846

771

8.50

228

7715

110

.88

3413

002

Fina

ncia

l Man

ager

5,37

46,

130

756

14.0

716

176

8527

.14

3513

011

Mar

ketin

g, A

dv.,

Pub

lic R

elat

ions

Man

ager

3,87

84,

597

719

18.5

412

672

5426

.62

3634

035

Arti

st a

nd C

omm

erci

al A

rtist

3,07

03,

788

718

23.3

913

572

6315

.50

3732

505

Lice

nsed

Pra

ctic

al N

urse

5,36

96,

073

704

13.1

118

670

116

18.1

838

3130

3Te

ache

r, P

resc

hool

and

Kin

derg

arte

n3,

851

4,54

369

217

.97

151

6982

7.27

3927

302

Soc

ial W

orke

r, M

edic

al a

nd P

sych

iatri

c1,

953

2,61

666

333

.95

9166

2516

.54

4053

905

Teac

her’s

Aid

e an

d E

duca

tiona

l Ass

ista

nt4,

706

5,36

866

214

.07

120

6654

6.36

4143

014

Sec

uriti

es, F

inan

cial

Ser

vice

Sal

es2,

825

3,46

463

922

.62

8564

2128

.50

4298

902

Han

d P

acke

r and

Pac

kage

r6,

529

7,16

263

39.

7022

463

161

6.87

4315

011

Pro

perty

and

Rea

l Est

ate

Man

ager

3,24

43,

876

632

19.4

810

763

4417

.93

44 6

5026

Coo

k, R

esta

uran

t6,

300

6,92

562

59.

9222

863

165

9.01

4531

314

Teac

her,

Voc

atio

nal E

duca

tion

2,83

43,

458

624

22.0

292

6230

15.7

246

9710

2Tr

uck

Driv

er, H

eavy

8,91

09,

518

608

6.82

190

6112

911

.78

4713

014

Adm

inis

trativ

e S

ervi

ce M

anag

er2,

844

3,44

560

121

.13

110

6050

20.1

948

6700

2M

aid

and

Hou

seke

epin

g C

lean

er 9

,258

9,85

659

86.

4623

360

173

6.82

4932

102

Phy

sici

an6,

342

6,91

857

69.

0815

758

9939

.26

5085

302

Aut

omot

ive

Mec

hani

c5,

971

6,54

657

59.

6320

658

148

14.9

251

5533

8B

ookk

eepi

ng, A

ccou

ntin

g, a

nd 1

7,99

618

,559

563

3.13

392

5633

611

.62

Aud

iting

Cle

rk52

8720

2E

lect

ricia

n4,

205

4,75

354

813

.03

141

5586

14.0

553

5350

8B

ill a

nd A

ccou

nt C

olle

ctor

2,48

93,

034

545

21.9

012

155

6611

.12

5415

005

Edu

catio

n A

dmin

istra

tor

3,35

53,

899

544

16.2

113

854

8424

.27

5531

317

Inst

ruct

or, N

onvo

catio

nal E

duca

tion

1,13

31,

674

541

47.7

566

5412

14.7

356

8532

3A

ircra

ft M

echa

nic

2,42

62,

957

531

21.8

910

153

4816

.91

5734

038

Des

igne

r, E

xc. I

nter

ior D

esig

ner

2,51

63,

040

524

20.8

389

5237

14.9

258

2212

6E

lect

rical

and

Ele

ctro

nic

Eng

inee

r1,

643

2,13

549

229

.95

8449

3524

.11

Sou

rce:

Flo

rida

Dep

artm

ent o

f Lab

or a

nd E

mpl

oym

ent S

ecur

ity, O

ffice

of L

abor

Mar

ket S

tatis

tics.

Flor

ida

Indu

stry

and

Occ

upat

iona

l Em

ploy

men

t Pro

ject

ions

to 2

007


OC

CU

PATI

ON

S G

AIN

ING

TH

E M

OS

T N

EW

JO

BS

AR

EA

: FLO

RID

A- M

IAM

I-DA

DE

CO

UN

TY

EM

PLO

YM

EN

TAV

ER

AG

E A

NN

UA

L O

PE

NIN

GS

AVE

RA

GE

OC

CU

PATI

ON

BA

SE

YE

AR

PR

OJE

CTE

DC

HA

NG

ED

UE

TO

DU

E T

OW

AG

ER

AN

KC

OD

ETI

TLE

1997

2007

TOTA

LP

ER

CE

NT

TOTA

LG

RO

WTH

SE

PAR

ATIO

NS

1998

($)

5943

021

Trav

el A

gent

2,36

32,

855

492

20.8

299

4950

10.2

960

9780

8P

arki

ng L

ot A

ttend

ant

1,15

11,

628

477

41.4

468

4820

6.50

6115

026

Food

Ser

vice

and

Lod

ging

Man

ager

5,72

36,

188

465

8.13

147

4710

014

.96

6249

005

Sal

esR

ep.,S

cien

tific

Pro

d.,E

xc.R

etai

l3,

397

3,85

746

013

.54

129

4683

21.5

863

2730

8H

uman

Ser

vice

s W

orke

r1,

680

2,13

645

627

.14

8946

4312

.07

6468

014

Am

usem

ent a

nd R

ecre

atio

n A

ttend

ant

2,24

02,

688

448

20.0

086

4541

6.63

6522

127

Com

pute

r Eng

inee

r71

21,

158

446

62.6

449

454

25.2

866

2730

5S

ocia

l Wor

ker,

Exc

. Med

ical

and

2,4

352,

881

446

18.3

277

4532

14.2

3P

sych

iatri

c67

2190

5M

anag

emen

t Ana

lyst

2,27

02,

701

431

18.9

961

4318

23.9

168

6600

2D

enta

l Ass

ista

nt1,

743

2,17

242

924

.61

7043

2711

.19

6934

056

Pro

duce

r, D

irect

or, A

ctor

, Ent

erta

iner

955

1,38

442

944

.92

6443

2118

.13

7049

017

Cou

nter

and

Ren

tal C

lerk

3,26

43,

690

426

13.0

518

443

141

9.92

7197

947

Indu

stria

l Tru

ck a

nd T

ract

or O

pera

tor

2,19

72,

623

426

19.3

969

4326

10.4

372

3131

1Te

ache

r, S

peci

al E

duca

tion

2,85

83,

280

422

14.7

766

4224

24.1

073

9711

1B

us D

river

, Sch

ool

2,82

03,

240

420

14.8

992

4250

8.23

7455

332

Inte

rvie

win

g C

lerk

, Exc

. Per

sonn

el1,

539

1,95

041

126

.71

9041

499.

4475

3230

2R

espi

rato

ry T

hera

pist

931

1,33

840

743

.72

5541

1417

.70

7628

305

Par

aleg

al1,

990

2,39

640

620

.40

5841

1719

.34

7763

017

Cor

rect

ion

Offi

cer a

nd J

aile

r3,

011

3,41

440

313

.38

122

4082

13.3

378

5534

4B

illin

g, C

ost a

nd R

ate

Cle

rk2,

639

3,04

140

215

.23

9240

5210

.96

7915

008

Med

icin

e an

d H

ealth

Ser

vice

Man

ager

1,70

42,

098

394

23.1

269

3930

25.4

780

8300

5P

rodu

ctio

n In

spec

tor,

Gra

der

2,52

32,

904

381

15.1

010

738

6910

.43

8143

008

Sal

es A

gent

, Rea

l Est

ate

4,71

35,

092

379

8.04

133

3895

16.2

482

5802

6O

rder

Fill

er, S

ales

2,23

82,

615

377

16.8

592

3854

8.07

8381

002

Firs

t Lin

e S

uper

v., M

echa

nic

and

Rep

aire

r3,

520

3,89

237

210

.57

137

3710

019

.05

8421

111

Tax

Pre

pare

r1,

128

1,49

436

632

.45

6237

2514

.87

8521

511

Per

sonn

el, T

rain

ing,

Lab

or R

el. S

peci

alis

t2,

061

2,42

536

417

.66

9136

5516

.51

8698

905

Vehi

cle,

Equ

ipm

ent C

lean

er2,

477

2,84

036

314

.65

114

3678

7.36

8713

017

Eng

inee

ring,

Sci

ence

,1,

397

1,75

836

125

.84

6036

2432

.06

Com

p. S

yste

ms

Man

ager

Sou

rce:

Flo

rida

Dep

artm

ent o

f Lab

or a

nd E

mpl

oym

ent S

ecur

ity, O

ffice

of L

abor

Mar

ket S

tatis

tics.

Flor

ida

Indu

stry

and

Occ

upat

iona

l Em

ploy

men

t Pro

ject

ions

to 2

007.


DE

CLI

NIN

G O

R S

LOW

GR

OW

TH O

CC

UPA

TIO

NS

AR

EA

: FLO

RID

A- M

IAM

I-DA

DE

CO

UN

TY

EM

PLO

YM

EN

TA V

ER

AG

E A

NN

UA

L O

PE

NIN

GS

AVE

RA

GE

OC

CU

PATI

ON

BA

SE

YE

AR

PR

OJE

CTE

DC

HA

NG

ED

UE

TO

DU

E T

OW

AG

ER

AN

KC

OD

ETI

TLE

1997

2007

TOTA

LP

ER

CE

NT

TOTA

LG

RO

WTH

SE

PAR

ATIO

NS

1998

($)

192

717

Sew

ing

Mac

hine

Ope

rato

r, G

arm

ent

4,95

43,

133

-1,8

21-3

6.76

68-1

8268

6.76

279

801

Farm

Wor

ker

4,23

53,

753

-482

-11.

3813

0-4

813

0N

.A.*

349

021

Sto

ck C

lerk

’ Sal

es F

loor

11,1

3510

,844

-291

-2.6

116

8-2

916

87.

534

5601

1C

ompu

ter O

pera

tor,

Exc

. Per

iphe

ral E

quip

.1,9

381,

715

-223

-11.

5127

-22

2712

.60

557

102

Sw

itchb

oard

Ope

rato

r2,

729

2,52

8-2

01-7

.37

59-2

059

8.11

653

102

Ban

k Te

ller

4,07

13,

914

-157

-3.8

617

5-1

617

59.

247

9831

3H

elpe

r, E

lect

ricia

n1,

123

968

-155

-13.

8052

-16

528.

768

7100

2Fa

rmer

1,44

31,

297

-146

-10.

1222

-15

22N

.A.*

971

005

Farm

Man

ager

1,22

01,

084

-136

-11.

1521

-14

21N

.A.*

1032

105

Den

tist

1,19

61,

078

-118

-9.8

724

-12

2447

.79

1181

008

Firs

t Lin

e S

uper

v.,P

rodu

ctio

n3,

231

3,11

4-1

17-3

.62

84-1

284

16.7

212

5710

5D

irect

ory

Ass

ista

nce

Ope

rato

r23

912

4-1

15-4

8.12

5-1

25

10.1

113

6502

3B

utch

er a

nd M

eat C

utte

r1,

273

1,16

2-1

11-8

.72

30-1

130

10.3

514

5710

8C

entra

l Offi

ce O

pera

tor

342

231

-111

-32.

467

-11

79.

6215

9393

8M

eat,

Pou

ltry,

Fis

h C

utte

r42

532

0-1

05-2

4.71

10-1

110

7.17

1689

502

Pat

tern

mak

er, L

ayou

t Wor

ker,

Fabr

ic36

726

2-1

05-2

8.61

7-1

17

7.74

1791

905

Pla

stic

Mol

ding

, Cas

ting

Ope

rato

r36

527

2-9

3-2

5.48

9-9

97.

4118

9270

5Te

xtile

Mac

hine

Ope

rato

r1,

113

1,02

1-9

2-8

.27

19-9

197.

7919

9272

8P

ress

ing

Mac

hine

Ope

rato

r, Te

xtile

s62

454

0-8

4-1

3.46

14-8

147.

4020

8710

8D

ryw

all I

nsta

ller

488

405

-83

-17.

017

-87

13.6

221

8931

1C

abin

etm

aker

and

Ben

ch C

arpe

nter

1,29

61,

215

-81

-6.2

515

-815

8.76

2292

908

Pho

togr

aphi

c P

roce

ssin

g M

achi

ne O

pera

tor

413

332

-81

-19.

6116

-816

7.91

2392

702

Text

ile M

achi

ne S

ette

r/Ope

rato

r16

079

-81

-50.

633

-83

10.7

724

8572

6S

tatio

n in

stal

ler a

nd R

epai

rer,

Tele

phon

e18

611

0-7

640

.86

6-8

619

.52

2515

014

Indu

stria

l Pro

duct

ion

Man

ager

973

902

-71

-7.3

017

-717

22.4

426

8912

3Je

wel

er a

nd S

ilver

smith

359

288

-71

-19.

789

-79

12.7

727

8572

3E

lect

rical

Pow

erlin

e In

stal

ler/R

epai

rer

689

623

-66

-9.5

816

-716

16.7

428

9251

2O

ffset

Lith

ogra

phic

Pre

ss S

ette

r/Ope

rato

r41

635

4-6

2-1

4.90

8-6

815

.36

2956

021

Dat

a E

ntry

Key

er, C

ompo

sing

143

84-5

9-4

1.26

1-6

110

.03

*Wag

e in

form

atio

n is

una

vaila

ble

for t

his

occu

patio

nal c

ateg

ory.

Sou

rce:

Flo

rida

Dep

artm

ent o

f Lab

or a

nd E

mpl

oym

ent S

ecur

ity, O

ffice

of L

abor

Mar

ket S

tatis

tics.

Flor

ida

Indu

stry

and

Occ

upat

iona

l Em

ploy

men

t Pro

ject

ions

to 2

007


DE

CLI

NIN

G O

R S

LOW

GR

OW

TH O

CC

UPA

TIO

NS

**A

RE

A: F

LOR

IDA

- MIA

MI-D

AD

E C

OU

NTY

EM

PLO

YM

EN

TAV

ER

AG

E A

NN

UA

L O

PE

NIN

GS

AVE

RA

GE

OC

CU

PATI

ON

BA

SE

YE

AR

PR

OJE

CTE

DC

HA

NG

ED

UE

TO

DU

E T

OW

AG

ER

AN

KC

OD

ETI

TLE

1997

2007

TOTA

LP

ER

CE

NT

TOTA

LG

RO

WTH

SE

PAR

ATIO

NS

1998

($)

3089

508

Uph

olst

erer

387

329

-58

-14.

997

-67

10.6

531

8300

2In

spec

tor,

Test

er, G

rade

r, P

reci

sion

481

426

-55

-11.

4310

-610

13.9

432

6800

2B

arbe

r36

831

6-5

2-1

4.13

11-5

118.

1133

6302

8C

rimin

al In

vest

igat

or, F

eder

al68

764

245

-6.5

518

-518

25.2

034

9831

1H

elpe

r, B

rick

and

Mas

on31

126

9-4

2-1

3.50

14-4

148.

8635

8970

6P

aste

-Up

Wor

ker

9353

-40

-43.

012

-42

10.0

836

9392

6C

utte

r and

Trim

mer

, Han

d30

726

9-3

8-1

2.38

7-4

77.

2737

8951

1S

hoe

and

Leat

her W

orke

r25

021

2-3

8-1

5.20

5-4

59.

0738

9170

5W

eldi

ng M

achi

ne O

pera

tor

236

198

-38

-16.

106

-46

8.80

3992

308

Saw

ing

Mac

hine

Ope

rato

r/Ten

der

148

111

-37

-25.

004

-44

7.41

4032

926

EK

G T

echn

icia

n17

214

0-3

2-1

8.60

4-3

412

.01

4192

914

Pap

er G

oods

Mac

hine

Set

ter/O

pera

tor

347

315

-32

-9.2

27

-37

10.2

042

8730

8H

ard

Tile

Set

ter

224

193

-31

-13.

846

-36

10.5

143

8951

7P

ress

er, D

elic

ate

Fabr

ics

342

311

-31

-9.0

68

-38

7.13

4492

546

Bin

dery

Mac

hine

Ope

rato

r41

338

3-3

0-7

.26

7-3

79.

7345

9271

4Te

xtile

Dye

ing

Mac

hine

Ope

rato

r86

56-3

0-3

4.88

1-3

18.

7246

9293

2D

airy

Pro

cess

ing

Equ

ipm

ent O

pera

tor

6738

-29

-43.

282

-32

12.2

947

8912

6H

and

Wor

ker,

Jew

elry

, Pre

cisi

on83

54-2

9-3

4.94

2-3

211

.40

4828

311

Title

Exa

min

er a

nd A

bstra

ctor

160

131

-29

-18.

131

-31

13.9

349

8780

2In

sula

tion

Wor

ker

215

187

-28

-13.

027

-37

11.8

150

9111

7M

achi

ne T

ool C

uttin

g O

pera

tor,

Met

al/P

last

ic12

092

-28

-23.

333

-33

10.1

0

**Th

is ta

ble

incl

udes

occ

upat

ions

with

a m

inim

um b

ase

year

em

ploy

men

t of 2

0 jo

bs.

Sou

rce:

Flo

rida

Dep

artm

ent o

f Lab

or a

nd E

mpl

oym

ent S

ecur

ity, O

ffice

of L

abor

Mar

ket S

tatis

tics.

Flor

ida

Indu

stry

and

Occ

upat

iona

l Em

ploy

men

t Pro

ject

ions

to 2

007.


S c i e n c e S u r v e y T e a mFINAL REPORT


science survey team report67

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 69

SCIENCE TEAM CO-CHAIRS’ REPORT........................................................................................ 75

GEOLOGY, SEDIMENTOLOGY, CLIMATE, AND SEA LEVEL ............................................................ 109

Hydrodynamics and Mass Transport ............................................................................... 135

watershed hydrology ........................................................................................................ 141

Coupling Biscayne Bay’s Natural Resources and Fisheries toEnvironmental Quality and Freshwater Inflow Management .................................. 163

Habitat and Species of concern ......................................................................................... 175

Water and Sediment Quality ............................................................................................. 219


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY69

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Authors:

Joan A. Browder and Harold R. Wanless


INTRODUCTIONBiscayne Bay stretches from a densely populated urban center to near-wilderness. With its naturally clear waters, uniqueunderwater vistas, and high biodiversity, the Bay is a natural resource treasure of Miami-Dade County, the state of Florida,and the nation. Biscayne Bay has experienced considerable modification of bottom, shoreline, and freshwater inflow withthe advent and expansion of modern human populations. In addition, inputs of human-associated nutrients, pathogens, andorganic material have affected the Bay’s water quality. The cumulative effects of all of these stressors has seriously compro-mised the functioning of the Biscayne Bay ecosystem and diminished its natural resource value. Elimination of inputs ofmunicipal sewage beginning in the 1950s, as well as extensive efforts to stabilize shorelines and restore fringing wetlandhabitat in recent years have resulted in major improvements in Bay water quality. Nevertheless, further improvement isneeded and major new problems threaten the Bay’s ecosystem health and its support value for fish and wildlife, includingmany species of special interest and concern.

As part of the Biscayne Bay Partnership Initiative, a group of scientists knowledgeable about the Bay, as many as 80scientists in all, met several times over the past year to the consider major environmental issues concerning the Bay, existingscientific knowledge applicable to these issues, and major gaps in scientific knowledge needed to resolve the issues. Thefollowing major threats to the future of the Bay were identified:

• Recently proposed or projected changes in the quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of freshwater inflow;

• Human-induced inputs of pollutants, nitrogen, phosphorus, and toxic chemicals;

• Potential development of coastal wetlands and inappropriate development of adjacent uplands;

• Physical alteration or damage to the bay bottom and other factors that destroy communities of bottom-dwellingorganisms, destabilize bottom sediments, and increase turbidity;

• Lack of oversight on fishing pressure or knowledge of its effects.

• Sea-level rise and other aspects of climate change

• Expanding human population.

Experts were organized into six groups, and detailed science recommendations were generated by each group. Eachgroup covered one of the following topics:

• Fish communities, environment, and human interaction;

• habitat and species of concern;

• water and sediment quality;

• watershed hydrology;

• hydrodynamics and mass transport; and

• geology, sedimentology, climate, and sea level.

The groups all recognized that the most immediate need is for scientific information (i.e., biological indicators, perfor-mance measures, and targets) to restore and protect the Bay in ongoing water management planning activities (i.e., theComprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and the Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan). Sea level rise andpopulation expansion were recognized as major problems increasing with time that require the application of scientificinformation to planning and management decisions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY71

These scientists, representing many disciplines and organizations, have recommended a series of investigations andpredictive tools to address the challenges of restoring Biscayne Bay and protecting the Bay from immediate and long-termproblems. Funds are requested from the Florida Legislature to develop a science program for Biscayne Bay built on theserecommendations. Funds to support the development and operation of a permanent Science Advisory Committee andScience Oversight Panel for Biscayne Bay are also requested.

OVERARCHING SCIENCE RECOMMENDATIONSFollowing are 14 overarching science recommendations that include and summarize major recommendations of the specialtopic groups. The full list of recommendations from each of the special-topic groups is included at the end of the ScienceCo-chairs’ Report. Background information and a fuller discussion of the recommendations is given in the individual reportof each special-topic science report.

1. Using ecological criteria, determine the quantity, timing, and distribution of freshwater flow needed to protectand restore Biscayne Bay and to reestablish a viable estuarine ecosystem in the nearshore and coastal wetlandzone of western Biscayne Bay.

(This information is urgently needed in major water management planning processes that will affect freshwater flow toBiscayne Bay. Definition of biological targets enable definition of target salinity envelopes that enable definition of targetfreshwater inflows. Targets are critically needed to guide the planning and implementation of CERP and other regional plansin the Bay’s watershed. Defining appropriate targets to restore and protect Biscayne Bay will require integrated hydrologic,hydrodynamic, and biological efforts, including improvements in the capability to model freshwater inflows to the Bay underalternative management scenarios and the capability to model salinity patterns in the Bay as a function of freshwaterinflows.)

a) Select appropriate biological indicators—then articulate performance measures and desirable future states[“targets”] with respect to the selected biological indicators.

b) Determine the desirable salinity range, or “salinity envelope”, to support the biological indicators and therequired location of this envelope to ensure that appropriate bottom or shoreline habitat will be availablewithin the salinity envelope.

c) Determine the freshwater inflow regime that will establish and maintain the desired salinity envelope inthe appropriate habitat.

2. Determine the condition of recreationally and commercially important fishery stocks and keystone species ofthe ecosystem. Develop a better understanding of their demographics and population dynamics. Determinefishing rates and the impact of fishing on population size and community structure, including effects on non-target species caught and released.

(An assessment of fishery resources has not occurred in Biscayne Bay since 1984, during which time fishing pressure mayhave increased. Particular attention needs to be paid to populations that utilize the bay’s shallow (< 1 m depth), intertidaland mangrove-lined shoreline habitats since these will be the areas most affected by planned water management changes.)

3. Assuming a 0.6 m (2 ft) rise in sea level, carefully evaluate the resulting changes that will occur to BiscayneBay, its margins, circulation, freshwater inflow, and habitats in response to global warming over the next 50 to100 years. Incorporate consideration of resulting models of the future Biscayne in all management, policy,economic, and remediation decisions.


4. Develop and implement a system for quantifying and monitoring the sources, fluxes, and fates of nutrients andcontaminants entering Biscayne Bay and evaluating their biological effects.

(Monitoring data provide a basis for describing geographic and temporal patterns in water and sediment concentrations butmust be coupled with hydrologic data to develop dynamic estimates of pollutant loading and nutrient mass balance. Inaddition, there is little information on atmospheric deposition of nutrients or contaminants. Information on fluxes related tosediments is nonexistent. There is little information on body burdens in fish and shellfish and little information on acute orchronic effects of contaminants known to be present in the Bay or canals that discharge into the Bay. Such data are neededto evaluate potential human health implications and ecological risks.)

a) Acquire and integrate data on freshwater inputs and nutrient/toxicant concentrations.

b) Acquire hydrodynamic transport and mixing data.

c) Acquire data on sediment deposition and flux rates of contaminants.

d) Develop calibrated, verified hydrodynamic model or other appropriate tool to predict transport, deposi-tion, and flux that would be suitable for use as a basis for a predictive tool for water quality issues.

e) Develop water quality, sediment flux model or other appropriate tool to predict the transport and fate ofecologically important nutrients and toxicants.

f) Determine the effect of exposure to contaminants in surface water and sediments on local plant andanimal populations.

g) Develop ecological models or other appropriate tools to predict ecological consequences of nutrient andtoxicant loads.

5. Develop a quantitative understanding of sources of turbidity, interactions of turbidity and the benthic commu-nity, and effects of physical disturbance on the benthic communities maintaining sediment stability.

6. Develop a spatially detailed understanding of the permeability of the Biscayne aquifer as related to groundwaterseepage to the Bay.

7. Develop an integrated understanding of freshwater inflows, salinity, circulation, and mass transport as theyrelate to all of the above recommendations.

a) Further develop, calibrate, and verify appropriate hydrodynamic models.

b) Obtain the additional data needed to adequately develop, calibrate, and verify the hydrodynamic models.

c) Form linkages to freshwater inflow, water quality, sediment flux, and ecological models.

d) Apply the models to freshwater inflow, circulation, and water and sediment quality issues.

e) Conduct a peer review of hydrodynamic models available for Biscayne Bay to develop an understanding ofthe relative strengths, weaknesses, and applicability of the various models. Use appropriate modeling todevelop an understanding of salinity, circulation, and mass transport as it relates to major issues.

8. Continue to support major ongoing wetland restoration projects in Biscayne Bay, while at the same timedeveloping a process for periodic scientific review of the Bay’s restoration needs and restoration approachesand the development and implementation of an integrated restoration program to meet the needs.

9. Provide funding for a multi-year science program in Biscayne Bay.

10. It is critical that scientists become an integral part of the design, promotion and evaluation of research and

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY73

monitoring efforts for the betterment of Biscayne Bay. For this purpose, we recommend forming a permanentBiscayne Bay Science Committee for Biscayne Bay. Responsibilities of the Committee will be:

a) To be associated with the Science Coordination Team (SCT) of the South Florida Ecosystem RestorationTask Force and to interact with the Biscayne Bay Issue Team to be formed as recommended by theBiscayne Bay Partnership Initiative.

b) To focus primarily on Biscayne Bay science issues related to the Comprehensive Everglades RestorationPlan.

c) To provide input to and rigorous peer review of a strategic science plan for Biscayne Bay and assure itsappropriate evolution over the coming years once such a plan has been put forward;

d) To help facilitate annual conferences and topical workshops to assure the widest possible dissemination ofthe relevant scientific information;

e) To facilitate education and outreach activities relating to Biscayne Bay and its ecosystem;

f) To interact with the state of Florida and relevant federal agencies to develop funding mechanisms suffi-cient to address the long term technical and scientific needs and to promote in-place funding for researchand monitoring needs for catastrophic events, both natural and anthropogenic;

g) To appoint, with concurrence of the Biscayne Bay Issue Team, an Independent Science Oversight Panel toanalyze the scientific pertinence and validity of publicly-funded research, monitoring and restorationmethods, data, conclusions, and recommendations.

h) To interact with research scientists and program managers to assure maintenance of the highest qualityresearch, monitoring and restoration activities.

State funds will be required to staff the Biscayne Bay Science Advisory Committee and the ScienceOversight Panel, provide travel compensation for members, etc. The chair of this committee would be amember of the SFER Biscayne Bay Issue Team should one be established.

11. Create a vigorous Biscayne Bay environmental education program on the value of Biscayne Bay’s importantplant and animal communities, how to enhance the quality of Biscayne Bay’s environments, and how toprevent damage to the most critical elements and species of concern.

(Education of the public youth and adults will lead to more responsible and respectful use of Biscayne Bay and its resources.)

12. Facilitate the development of a Biscayne Bay web site devoted to disseminating research findings relevant toBiscayne Bay restoration, and land-use planning.

13. Promote the annual publication or posting of syntheses, evaluation, and interpretation of all publicly fundedmonitoring results, scientific reports, and data from monitoring under permits.

14. Ensure that publicly funded research, monitoring, and restoration data and information are maintained in anopenly available web-based GIS database form easily and quickly available to other scientists and the public.Data should be layered to contain all historical and future publicly funded scientific research, modeling, andmonitoring data and results, including all data generated for government agencies by the public for permittingand enforcement actions (biological and water quality monitoring reports).

(Though open to all, it should to be specifically designed for scientific and management needs.)


CONCLUSIONBiscayne Bay faces many challenges and threats to its present and future well being. The public and its representatives mustbe well-informed to protect the Bay from the increasing pressures of diversion of freshwater inflow, development of coastalwetlands, recreational activity, port and marina expansion, harvesting of fishery resources, and damage to bottom communi-ties resulting from fishing, boating, and pollution. Scientific knowledge is critical to the Bay’s future. Building an under-standing of the Bay’s dynamics and evolution, its characteristic species and natural communities and their support functionsand interactions will ensure that efforts made to protect and restore the Bay will be successful. Scientific participation inbuilding an understanding of the Bay ecosystem and its dynamics is crucial.

SCIENCE TEAM CO-CHAIRS’ REPORT75

SCIENCE TEAM CO-CHAIRS’ REPORT

Co-chairs:

Harold R. Wanless and Joan Browder

Authors:

Joan A. Browder and Harold R. Wanless


INTRODUCTIONBiscayne Bay is a national treasure and a gift of nature not only to the nation but also to the people fortunate enough to liveand work in Miami-Dade County. Many residents have selected this area as their home because of the amenities afforded byclose proximity to Biscayne Bay, including opportunities to enjoy the tropical wildlife, fishing, underwater vistas, and otherscenic pleasures associated with the Bay. As more and more people are attracted to these amenities, the pressure of increas-ing populations is exerted on the very aspects of the Bay that are most valued.

Biscayne Bay, as well as the South Florida coastal ocean ecosystem (i.e., Florida Keys, Florida Bay, and the Reef Tract),has undergone major environmental changes due to a century of intensive regional population growth that has acceleratedcoastal and watershed development, habitat degradation and loss, and pollution. Fortunately, despite this expansion ofhuman activity, favorable trends in water quality have been recorded throughout at least the past 40 years, and the value ofhealthy benthic habitat and a viable coastal wetland has become recognized.

Following elimination of municipal sources of sewage and the establishment of laws and enforcement that reducedinputs of sewage and other contaminants, the Bay has recovered markedly from previous years of serious pollution. Restora-tion of shoreline communities and the establishment of natural limestone boulders along public shorelines has reducederosion and wave-induced bottom disturbance that generates turbidity in North Biscayne Bay, allowing the Bay to recoversomewhat from dredging and filling, although many bottom areas are still depauperate. Nevertheless, the Bay still receivessubstantial contaminants, sewage, and disturbance due to its proximity to intense urban and agricultural activity and thesteadily growing human population of several million along its coastline. Sediments in parts of Biscayne Bay, the MiamiRiver, and the Military Canal are toxic and contain significant quantities of contaminants. Several factors contributing toturbidity are increasing, including vessel traffic, prop scars and scouring from recreational boats, and pulsed freshwater inputsfrom canal point sources.

Estuarine environments are among the most productive parts of the ocean and contribute substantially to the abun-dance and diversity of marine life. Many fish and shellfish species harvested from offshore marine waters must spend a part oftheir lives in estuaries. Estuarine habitat has been lost in North Biscayne Bay because of the digging of Haulover Cut,causeway construction, canal construction, wetland habitat destruction, development, and dredging and filling. Estuarinefunction associated with coastal wetlands and shoreline has been lost in the western nearshore Bay due to changes in thequantity, quality, timing, and distribution of freshwater inflow.

Salinity, like temperature, is a major factor affecting physiological processes of plants and animals such as growth,survival, and reproduction. The availability of an appropriate salinity range, or “salinity envelope”, and its placement inrelation to favorable bottom and shoreline habitat are critical to the distribution, abundance, and health of both plants andanimals in estuaries. Abrupt decreases in salinity are stressful to plants and animals. Hypersaline (high salinity) conditionsalso are stressful and limit biomass and diversity. A natural salinity gradient extending from coastal wetlands to the Baythrough tidal creeks provides critical nursery habitat for species such as redfish, and loss of this essential habitat is thought tobe a major reason why efforts to reintroduce this species, which once was sufficiently abundant in the Bay to support afishery, have not been very successful.

Two major water-management planning activities are in progress in South Florida that could have substantial effects onfreshwater flow to Biscayne Bay. These are the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), which has restorationof wetland and estuarine and coastal ecosystems as a stated major objective, and the Lower East Coast Regional WaterSupply Plan (LECRWSP). Both processes will use State water law to establish Minimum Flows and Levels [Section 373.042F.S.] and will reserve water to deliver for preservation and/or restoration [Section 373.223(4) F. S]. CERP will substantiallyrestructure the regional water management system. LECRWSP will affect the issuance of long-term municipal well fieldpermits. Recent LECRWSP evaluations predict that future urban and agricultural development and water withdrawals for


urban drinking water will reduce the amount of water flowing to Biscayne Bay. Both CERP and LECRWSP have createdprocesses to use science-based biological criteria when designing plan components and to monitor changes resulting fromtheir implementation. Both plans have a built-in provision for changing the design of system components, even afterimplementation, based on observations of ecosystem responses determined by monitoring. The success of these safeguards inprotecting Biscayne Bay is dependent upon the availability of scientifically well-founded biological and physical criteria andpredictive tools. A substantial body of scientific knowledge about Biscayne Bay must be developed and assembled to restorethe Bay’s estuarine resources and improve the timing and distribution of freshwater flows to the Bay in these planningprocesses.

Loss of coastal wetlands at the margin of the Bay is a long-term threat to the Bay’s ecological function and its naturalresources. Restoring a more natural quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of freshwater flow to Biscayne Bay andreestablishing a productive estuarine zone along the western margin of South Biscayne Bay are dependent upon receiving asufficient quantity of water from the regional water management system and redistributing it along the shoreline through thecoastal wetlands. The availability of coastal marshes to receive sheet flow, provide natural nutrient adsorption, and holdflood waters temporarily is also critical to restoring the Bay’s productivity.

Substantial tracts of coastal wetland, including coastal freshwater wetland, exist on the margin of South Biscayne Bayfrom Matheson Hammock southward. Most of these wetlands remain relatively undeveloped but have been structurallyaltered and functionally degraded as wetland habitat by loss of freshwater inflow. Much of this area has been identified forpurchase in Florida’s Save Our Rivers and Miami-Dade County’s Environmentally Endangered Lands programs. CERPproposes to restore wetland function and re-establish a more natural sheet flow of water to the Bay in wetlands from theDeering Estate southward to Turkey Point. The Florida Power and Light Mitigation Bank occupies some wetland areabetween Turkey Point and Jewfish Creek and can help link upland water sources to coastal wetlands and tidal creeks. Anopportunity to develop an integrated restoration plan for these wetlands exists. Any future land development in coastal freshand saltwater wetlands from the Deering Estate to Jewfish Creek could interfere with restoration of freshwater inflows toBiscayne Bay by preventing redistribution of flow from canals to wetlands. Inappropriate land development in adjacentuplands could undermine restoration efforts by reducing flexibility in making water management changes and by degradingwater quality.

MAJOR ISSUESAs a clear-water subtropical system, the Bay supports a rich variety of fish, wildlife, and tropical bottom communities.Specific habitat is provided in the Bay for each species that lives in the Bay, including species that migrate in and out of theBay daily, seasonally, or through their life cycle. If their habitat becomes unsuitable or disappears, the animals lose theirhome and humans lose the benefits of the Bay’s biodiversity. Coastal wetland habitat and bay bottom (benthic) habitat,including seagrasses, have the greatest importance to aquatic life. Beach habitat and adjacent upland habitat, includingcoastal scrub and coastal tropical hardwood hammock, are other valued habitats that support a variety of wildlife, includingendangered species. The principal immediate threats to existing Biscayne Bay habitat and the fish and wildlife they supportare: (1) changes in the quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of freshwater inflows; (2) physical alteration or damage tothe bay bottom and other factors that destroy communities of bottom-dwelling organisms, destabilize bottom sediments, andincrease turbidity; (3) human-induced inputs of pollutants, including excess nitrogen and phosphorus, which add to turbid-ity by stimulating algal blooms; and toxicants, many of which accumulate in sediments and threaten animals directly; (4)potential development of coastal wetlands and inappropriate development of adjacent uplands; and (5) increasingly heavy,inadequately monitored, recreational and commercial fishing.


ROLE OF SCIENCEIt is critical that scientists become an integral part of the design, promotion and evaluation of research and monitoringefforts for the betterment of Biscayne Bay. For this purpose, we recommend forming a permanent Biscayne Bay ScienceCommittee for Biscayne Bay. Responsibilities of the Committee will be:

1. To be associated with the Science Coordination Team (SCT) of the South Florida Ecosystem RestorationTask Force and to interact with the Biscayne Bay Issue Team to be formed as recommended by theBiscayne Bay Partnership Initiative.

2. To focus on Biscayne Bay science issues, including those related to the Comprehensive Everglades Restora-tion Plan.

3. To provide input to and rigorous peer review of a strategic science plan for Biscayne Bay and assure itsappropriate evolution over the coming years once such a plan has been put forward;

4. To help facilitate annual conferences and topical workshops to assure the widest possible dissemination ofthe relevant scientific information;

5. To facilitate education and outreach activities relating to Biscayne Bay and its ecosystem;

6. To interact with the state of Florida and relevant federal agencies to develop funding mechanisms suffi-cient to address the long term technical and scientific needs and to promote in-place funding for researchand monitoring needs for catastrophic events, both natural and anthropogenic;

7. To appoint, with concurrence of the Biscayne Bay Issue Team, an Independent Science Oversight Panel toanalyze the scientific pertinence and validity of publicly-funded research, monitoring and restorationmethods, data, conclusions, and recommendations. Interact with research scientists and program managersto assure maintenance of the highest quality research, monitoring and restoration activities;

State funds will be required to staff the Biscayne Bay Science Advisory Committee and the Science OversightPanel, provide travel compensation for members, etc. The chair of this committee would be a member of the SFER BiscayneBay Issue Team should one be established.

Biscayne Bay faces many challenges and threats to its present and future well being. The public and its representativesmust be well-informed to protect the Bay from the increasing pressures of diversion of freshwater inflow, development ofcoastal wetlands, recreational activity, port and marina expansion, harvesting of fishery resources, and damage to bottomcommunities resulting from fishing, boating, and pollution. Scientific knowledge is critical to the Bay’s future. Building anunderstanding of the Bay’s dynamics and evolution, its characteristic species and natural communities and their supportfunctions and interactions will ensure that efforts made to protect and restore the Bay will be successful. Scientific participa-tion in building an understanding of the Bay dynamics and ecosystem is crucial. One role of science is to reliably predict thelong-term consequences of proposed actions on the Bay function and ecosystem. Another is to recommend alternative waysto achieve objectives that are more ecologically desirable. Yet another role is to determine positive actions to improve theBay’s natural beauty and ecological functioning. Finally, scientists must communicate this information to the public, youngand old, and should explain the benefits of protecting and enhancing Biscayne Bay. A series of scientific studies or projectsto obtain critically needed information about Biscayne Bay are recommended in this report.

Some scientific conclusions about the Bay are presently sufficiently understood that there is consensus among scientistsfor recommending modifications to existing management and regulatory activities. These are presented separately as ‘SpecificScience-generated Management and Action Recommendations’ in the recommendation section.


DESCRIPTION OF BISCAYNE BAYBiscayne Bay is described in terms of physical setting and history of change, biological structure, consisting of seagrass andother benthic communities within the Bay and the vegetation communities along its margins, and its residents, the fish,shellfish, bird, and other species of interest and concern.

The setting and history of changeNatural Biscayne Bay was a shallow subtropical estuary characterized by clear water and dominated by diverse and produc-tive benthic communities of sea grasses and hard bottom soft corals and sponges. A fringe of mangrove wetlands bisectedwith tidal creeks rimmed much of the Bay margin. The clear waters were maintained by benthic communities, fringingmangroves, and adjacent freshwater wetlands that filtered water and trapped sediments. The bottom communities, in turn,flourished because of the clear waters. Landward, freshwater sheet flow from the Everglades and local uplands fed tidal creeksthat distributed freshwater flow along much of the shoreline. Freshwater seeped through the permeable aquifer into the Bayas ground water. The seaward margin of the Bay was a series of sandy barrier islands to the north, channel-dissected shallowmarine sand and mud banks along the central portion, and islands of an emergent coral limestone ridge to the south.

Biscayne Bay is not like most of the better known eastern seaboard estuaries, which are deep, partially drowned rivervalleys receiving a large influx of river-borne clays. Natural Biscayne Bay is a shallow basin that received primarily clear,wetland-filtered fresh water via flow through many small creeks and groundwater from the Everglades and coastal ridge. Allthe sediment within Biscayne Bay is produced as skeletal and organic remains from the tropical organisms living in oradjacent to the Bay, plus some quartz-carbonate beach sands brought in from along the seaward coast.

Five thousand years ago, when sea level was about 20 feet lower than today, there was no Biscayne Bay. The Bay formedas sea level inundated a depression in the limestone between 5,000 and 2,400 years ago. During and since that time, thesandy barrier islands, the banks of carbonate sand and mud, and the coastal wetland swamp and marsh deposits have grownand evolved to give the Bay its present form. Especially critical was the relatively slow rise in sea level that occurred duringthe past 2,400 years (less than 2 inches of rise per century). Over this time, shallow sand and mud banks formed along theeastern margin of central Biscayne Bay and extended well across northern (north of present Julia Tuttle Causeway), southCentral (Featherbed Banks), and southern Biscayne Bay, partitioning the Bay into natural divisions.

Biscayne Bay has been significantly modified in the past century. Freshwater levels were lowered by as much as 6 ft on,and west of, the mainland coastal ridge as drainage canals were cut and water drained from the Everglades. Two new inletsthrough south and north Miami Beach altered circulation in northern Biscayne Bay. The mangrove margins north ofCoconut Grove and Key Biscayne were largely covered by fill and the shorelines bulkheaded to make developable bay-margin land. Dredging of the Bay margin for this fill left dredged areas of varying depth (up to 20 ft) in scattered locations ofnorthern Biscayne Bay. New dredged islands, port facilities, and six cross-bay causeways further segmented northernBiscayne Bay. Dredge-deepening of the adjacent bay bottom was associated with each project. Most of these modificationshad occurred by 1926. As a result, northern Biscayne Bay is now segmented into six compartments connected by narrowgaps in the causeways. A significant portion of the dredged Bay bottom is too deep for the communities of benthic organismsthat characterized the natural Bay. The productive estuarine ecosystem, which once supported an oyster fishery, has beenmostly lost along much of the shoreline. In addition, raw sewage emptied unchecked into the northern Bay until diverted tosewage treatment plants in 1952. These modifications resulted in high levels of turbidity in much of north and north centralBiscayne Bay, further restricting the distribution of the important benthic habitats. Despite this, some parts of the northernBay remain highly productive, and in recent years water quality has been improved through elimination of municipal sewage


inputs, regulatory action to reduce other pollutant inputs, and the placement of natural limestone boulders alongbulkheaded shorelines to reduce erosion and prevent wave reflection.

Harbor dredging projects to support an enormous growth of the cargo and cruise ship fleets serving the Caribbean,Central and South America, and the rest of the world have been associated with degraded water quality and destruction ofessential habitats. Substantial beach re-nourishment projects from Miami Beach to Key Biscayne are regularly conducted,but the resultant turbidity, siltation, and destruction of habitats from these beach re-nourishment activities degrade theadjacent ecosystem.

South Biscayne Bay remains a clear-water, benthic-community dominated Bay, but alteration in freshwater input hasdiminished its estuarine character, and heavy boat traffic and commercial fishing have increased overall turbidity levels andare causing increasing damage to the benthic communities. Much of the southern Bay, despite substantial coastal develop-ment, has retained its relatively pristine habitats, has good water quality and supports significant production of economi-cally-important fish and shellfish.

Biological StructureThe dominant benthic communities in Biscayne Bay are seagrass and hardbottom. Seagrass occupies over 64% of the Baybottom, and hardbottom communities cover approximately 17% of the total bay (Milano, 1983). Remaining benthiccommunities are functionally very important and include algal communities, coral-algal shoal fringe community, mudbottom, and sand bottom filtering communities. Transitional zones between these communities support high species diver-sity.

Seagrasses are found in all parts of the Bay where water depth and clarity allow sufficient light penetration and pastdisturbances have not eliminated them. At least seven seagrass species commonly occur in Biscayne Bay: Thalassiatestudinum (turtle grass), Halodule wrightii (shoal grass), Syringodium filiforme (manatee grass), three species of Halophila,including H. johnsonii, which is federally listed as endangered, and Ruppia maritima (widgeon grass). Species presencedepends on local conditions, including light, substrate, salinity, and time of recovery from natural or human setbacks.Seagrasses commonly occur in mixed-species beds. The hard-bottom community assemblage is characterized by sea fans,sponges, and small coral patches and is found especially in Biscayne National Park. These areas are particularly sensitive towater quality, light transmission, and disturbance. The coral-algal shoal fringe assemblage occurs along the edge of theextensive mud banks in the central and southern Bay and at the Bay’s entrance at the Safety Valve. Mud bottom communi-ties are associated with the large areas of carbonate mud banks and mud bottom that occur throughout the Bay and also deepchannels.

All benthic communities of the Bay provide important functions with respect to water clarity, sediment stabilization,and food and shelter for fish, shrimp, lobsters and crabs—especially postlarval and juvenile stages—and other aquatic life.Seagrasses and benthic algae are important primary producers, converting the sun’s energy into food and structure useful tofish and wildlife. Seagrasses provide structure and habitat necessary to many animals. Manatees and adult green sea turtlesfeed directly on seagrass. Studies in South Florida estuaries indicate that the abundance of pink shrimp is greater in seagrasssites than on bare bottom. Seagrasses help stabilize banks and mud and silt bottoms on a large scale. The coral-algal shoalfringe assemblage grows on the most exposed flanks of mud banks and helps maintain their stability when subjected to highwave action.

Biscayne Bay was bordered historically by a mix of mangroves, salt marsh, herbaceous freshwater marsh, and penetratingtidal creeks. These supported the Bay ecosystem by spreading freshwater inflow, absorbing excess nutrients, and providinghabitat—including critical nursery habitat—for fish and shellfish, as well as feeding habitat for wading birds. Local rainfall,groundwater seepage, overland sheet flow and small coastal rivers fed water to the Bay all along its margins rather than atjust a few canal discharge sites. Maintained by freshwater inflow, the natural herbaceous wetlands, fresh-to-brackish tidal


creeks, and low salinity mangrove shoreline and delta provided a broad band of habitat for estuarine organisms having avariety of salinity needs.

Freshwater wetlands in the Biscayne Bay watershed historically occupied the marl prairies immediately east of theMiami Rock Ridge. They were, and still are, most extensive in the southern reaches of the county, where the Ridge curveswestward away from the coast. Prior to development, these marshes were dominated by sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), spikerush (Eleocharis cellulosa) and other freshwater graminoids, including grasses, and herbs. Water reached them via directprecipitation, surface flow from the Everglades through breaks in the Ridge (“transverse glades”), or rising groundwater whenthe regional water table was high. Today their hydrologic regime is controlled largely by regional water managementpractices, and surface water inputs are largely precipitation-driven.

In the past, freshwater and brackish marsh habitats bordered the Bay’s western shoreline and barrier islands, but over thelast century, western shorelines of the Bay and eastern barrier islands have undergone extensive loss of marsh and man-groves. The western Bay was heavily impacted by the construction of 19 water management canals that drained wetlandsand now release water in pulses to prevent intermittent coastal flooding and facilitate agriculture. The result is a highlymodified delivery of fresh waters to the Bay that results in rapidly fluctuating salinity regimes adjacent to canals and loss ofestuarine conditions elsewhere. Wetland loss on the bay margin of the sandy barrier islands was mainly due to smothering bydredged fill in the early 1900s.

Fish CommunitiesBiscayne Bay is a unique subtropical coastal marine ecosystem renown for its diverse and abundant natural resources andscenic beauty. The Bay contributes to the multibillion-dollar tourism and fishing industry in South Florida by providingcritical nursery habitats and food web links for many important commercial and recreational fishery resources. These includeecologically- and economically-important estuarine species like snook, tarpon, permit, spotted seatrout, oysters, clams, bluecrabs, and pink shrimp; several baitfishes; and numerous reef species, including snappers, groupers, grunts and lobsters. Theproduction dynamics of many natural resources in the Bay and nearby coastal waters and the reef tract are inextricablylinked to the quality of Bay waters and habitats. For example, many reef fish species use the Bay as a nursery ground.

Previous change in freshwater flow to Biscayne Bay has led to change in fish and invertebrate communities. Manyestuarine species, typified by the larger drum species and oysters, have declined in abundance due to the elimination ofextensive freshwater and brackish habitats that was caused by diverting freshwater inflow away from coastal wetlands andtidal creeks into canals. Salinity fluctuations caused by the opening and closing of structures controlling freshwater inflow tothe Bay stress plant and animal communities, reducing growth of aquatic plants and lowering animal abundance anddiversity.

Species of ConcernOne hundred seventy-three species occurring in Biscayne Bay, its coastal wetlands, or its coastal uplands, including barrierislands, can be found on some list of protected species (i.e., federal or state endangered or threatened species, state species ofspecial concern, Federal protected marine mammals, and Federally mandated (designated by South Atlantic Fishery Man-agement Council) Essential Fish Habitat. In addition, the Bay and adjacent wetlands support perhaps as many as 300 fishspecies and possibly even more invertebrates, including particularly the diverse species forming the Bay’s exceptionalhardbottom communities. Species of concern include the West Indian manatee, bottlenose dolphin, five sea turtle species,the crocodile, and many birds, including the Roseate Spoonbill, the White Ibis, the Brown Pelican, and the Black-neckedStilt. The manatee is the most seriously endangered animal in Biscayne Bay. Recreational boaters and gated water manage-ment control structures are the most serious threats to this species.


EVALUATION OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION RELATIVE TO NEEDSThe Small Working Groups and Their ReportsAs the team began its work in January 2000, it formed six working groups defined by discipline to more effectively addressthe issues and formulate recommendations. Each working group has contributed a section or “chapter” to be included in thescience portion of the Biscayne Bay Partnership Initiative’s final report. Over 80 experienced scientists with first-handknowledge of Biscayne Bay and concern for its long-term welfare have been involved in this process. The working grouptopics are:

• Geology, Sedimentology, Climate, and Sea Level

• Hydrodynamics and Mass Transport

• Watershed Hydrology

• Coupling Biscayne Bay’s Fisheries and Other Natural Resources to Environmental Quality and Freshwater InflowManagement

• Habitats and Species of Special Concern

• Water and Sediment Quality

Involvement in Scientific ResearchA number of entities are involved in scientific research and monitoring activities in and around Biscayne Bay. These includegovernmental agencies such as the:

• National Marine Fisheries Service/ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

• National Ocean Service/ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

• Biscayne National Park/National Park Service

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• U.S. Geological Survey

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• South Florida Water Management District

• Florida Department of Environmental Protection

• Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

• Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resource Management


As well as university, nonprofit, and private entities, including:

• University of Miami

• Florida International University

• University of Florida

• Florida Institute of Technology

• National Audubon Society

• Miami Museum of Science

• Greater Caribbean Energy and Environment Foundation

• Carney Environmental Consulting

• M.A. Roessler Associates, Inc.

• EAS Engineering

DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUESA long-term issue in Biscayne Bay is sea-level rise associated with climate change and its potential impacts on the Bay. Sea-level rise will increasingly influence and affect the outcomes of all planning activities about the Bay, its coastal wetlands anduplands, and the urban and agricultural areas of Miami-Dade County. The most urgent issue in Biscayne Bay today isaddressing the Bay’s needs with respect to freshwater inflow. Major water management planning activities are alreadyunderway that will change freshwater flow to the Bay. Scientific information about the Bay is urgently needed to protect andrestore the Bay in these planning processes. Other important issues concern water and sediment quality, especially turbidityand contamination, which affect to the quality of life of the plants and animals that live in the Bay. The rapid growth ofhuman population in the Biscayne Bay area exacerbates all of these problems.

Population Growth and Global Climate ChangePopulation and global climate change are dynamic influences that will control the future of Biscayne Bay. Planning, restora-tion and management efforts to maintain an ecologically healthy and productive Biscayne Bay will be for naught unless therole of these increasing stressors is properly addressed and incorporated. There is sufficient information to address the keycomponents of these influences. Population is forecast to rise substantially by 2050 and will likely continue to increasethrough 2100. Sea level, the most fundamental concern of global warming for south Florida, is presently rising at a rate ofone foot per century (since 1930) and is forecast to rise at least an additional 2-4 feet by 2100. We can and must assess theeffects that these changes will have on Biscayne Bay, its coastal wetlands, and adjacent uplands.

Future development, restoration and management in the Biscayne Bay area should be for the long-term welfare of theenvironments in and adjacent to Biscayne Bay. Biscayne Bay must have a dynamic research, policy, regulation and manage-ment structure that is responsive to dynamic long-term stressors and improved scientific knowledge. It must be possible tofrequently modify policy, management, and regulation as information and needs change.


Freshwater InflowThe quantity, quality, distribution, and timing of water delivered to Biscayne Bay have been severely altered. The mostimportant changes in freshwater inflow have been addition of runoff from drainage of the Everglades and the area west ofthe coastal ridge; a lowering of groundwater levels and reduction in associated groundwater seepage to the Bay; and asignificant shift from sheet flow through coastal wetlands and tidal creeks to point-source discharge from canals directly intothe Bay.

Biscayne Bay’s future depends upon having reliable scientific information and modeling tools to adequately protect itsresources in the further development and implementation of regional restoration and water supply programs. The new watermanagement plans, CERP and LECWRSP, as presently formulated, have major uncertainties concerning effects on BiscayneBay and could affect the amount of water the Bay receives. Fortunately efforts are being made to reduce the uncertaintiesand make Plan improvements, but major gaps exist in the information and modeling tools that are needed. Filling theseneeds is urgent because of the rapid pace of planning and implementation.

Water and Sediment QualityNorth Biscayne Bay’s water quality has improved substantially in the past 30 years, and water quality generally meets orexceeds federal, state, and local standards for recreational uses and propagation of fish and wildlife. In recognition of itsexceptional values, the State of Florida has designated the entire Bay and its natural tributaries as Outstanding FloridaWaters, and as such they receive the highest level of protection from degradation. However, some parts of the Bay have beensignificantly affected by past development and water management practices. Loss of wetland and seagrass communities hascontributed to changes in physical and ecological water quality characteristics. Also, the Bay still receives dissolved nutri-ents, trace metals, organic chemicals, and particulates via storm-water runoff, canal discharge, and discharges from industrialfacilities or vessels. Canal water typically has lower dissolved oxygen and clarity and higher concentrations of contaminantsthan receiving waters of the Bay, and so represents a source of degradation. The water quality problems of the Bay arediscussed below as four topics, turbidity, sewage effluent, nutrients, and contaminants.

Turbidity. Maintaining water clarity is of critical importance because seagrass and benthic algae, which dominateBiscayne Bay productivity, depend on light reaching the bay bottom, as do corals. Biscayne Bay is characterized bylow turbidity levels, although wind-driven resuspension of bottom sediments can occur following storm events. Inmost areas of Biscayne Bay, water clarity is adequate to support benthic vegetation. Turbidity is a concern in NorthBiscayne Bay because of loss of seagrass cover and continuing resuspension and erosion. The increased water depthsin areas that have been dredged make it impossible for benthic vegetation to recover. Concrete bulkheads, whichreplaced some natural shorelines in north Biscayne Bay and reflect wave energy, also contribute to resuspension ofbottom sediments as does the persistent erosion from unbulkheaded fill shorelines. Damage to bottom seagrasshabitat by prop wash and scouring in the shallow portions of Central and South Biscayne Bay is a further cause ofturbidity.

Nutrients. Since natural concentrations of nutrients in Biscayne Bay are low, the bay is vulnerable to nutrient loadingfrom canals, direct upland runoff, and groundwater seepage. Excess nutrients, especially phosphorus (becauseBiscayne Bay is phosphorus limited), can stimulate the growth of phytoplankton and epiphyte populations whichdiminishes light penetration to sustain the vital benthic communities. Increases in ammonia and nutrient concen-trations account for most negative water quality trends. Ammonia can be highly toxic to fish and invertebrates.Sources of ammonia and nutrients can include stormwater runoff, sewage contamination, leachate from landfills,fertilizers, and natural decay of plant material. These sources of contaminants can reach the Bay via surface waterdischarges from canals, direct upland runoff, or through groundwater pathways

Sewage. The sanitary quality of the waters of Biscayne Bay improved dramatically after regional sewage treatmentplants were constructed in the 1950’s and direct discharge of sewage effluent to Biscayne Bay was largely elimi-


nated. But indirect sewage contamination from improper or illegal discharges to storm sewers or groundwater stilloccurs in some tributaries. The Miami River, urban tributaries, and poorly flushed nearshore areas show evidence ofsewage contamination. Open water areas of the Bay rarely have exceeded standards for recreational contact formore than 20 years. In contrast, the Miami River and its tributaries chronically exceed standards, and occasionallyexhibit coliform bacteria concentrations that exceed standards by several orders of magnitude. Coliform bacteriaconcentrations in the Miami River, except for Wagner Creek, have declined over the last 5 years, although theygenerally still exceed standards. Other highly urban canals, including the upper Oleta River, Arch Creek, andLittle River, also exhibit frequent incidence of sewage contamination. During tropical storms, flooding, or damageto sewer infrastructure, contaminated canal water periodically affects adjoining parts of the Bay.

There is recent evidence that deep well injection efforts at the south Miami-Dade site are not isolating injected sewageeffluent below planned permeability barriers and the effluent is seeping back to the near-surface waters in and adjacent tosouthern Biscayne Bay. The hundreds of millions of gallons of effluent injected since beginning deep-well injection in 1983,may result in a serious long term degradation of the waters in and adjacent to southern Biscayne Bay. The reality of thisproblem is only just surfacing, and it will take focused research to document the extent and intensity of resulting contamina-tion.

Contaminants. The lower Miami River and several peripheral canals and tributaries of Biscayne Bay have severelycontaminated and toxic sediments. The Miami River and Wagner Creek exhibit higher levels of trace metals andorganic contaminants, such as some pesticides and PCB’s, than any other area in the State of Florida. In the openbasins of the bay, chemical concentrations and toxicity are generally higher in areas north of the RickenbackerCauseway than south of it. Sediments from the main basins of the bay generally are less toxic than those from theadjoining tributaries and canals. Miami River sediments are contaminated with mixtures of toxicants, are highlytoxic, and support relatively few benthic species relative to the Bay. Results from four different toxicity tests,overall, indicated highest toxicity in samples from the lower Miami River, Black Creek Canal, other canalsadjoining the south bay, and canals and tributaries adjoining the bay near Miami and Miami Beach. The least toxicsamples were collected from the far north and far south ends of the study area. The causes of toxicity could not bedetermined in this study. However, the weight of evidence strongly suggests that for the lower Miami River,toxicity as measured in the amphipod survival tests could have been caused, at least in part, by mixtures of somemetals and synthetic organic chemicals. In the canals of the south bay, both toxicity and contamination were lesssevere and the identities of chemicals that most probably contributed to toxicity were less clear. Concentrations ofPAHs, PCBs, and several trace metals, however, may have been sufficient to contribute to toxicity in the moresensitive sublethal tests.

The effects of toxicants on Biscayne Bay resources have been marginally studied. The prevalence of fish with externalabnormalities has fueled concerns of local fishermen and environmentalists concerning toxic materials entering the bay andtheir ecological consequences. The major types of deformities observed from roller-frame trawl and hook-and-line captureswere stunted or missing fin rays, depressions in the dorsal profile, jaw deformities and scale disorientation. These deformitieswere particularly evident in sea bream, bluestriped grunt, pinfish, and gray snapper. Significant correlations were foundbetween abnormality prevalence (all fish combined) and aliphatic hydrocarbon concentrations in the sediments, andbetween the prevalence of abnormalities in bluestriped grunt and sediment concentrations of copper. The highest preva-lence of abnormal fish was near marinas and canal discharge sites. This is consistent with studies elsewhere that have foundthe highest prevalence of abnormal fish at the most contaminated sites. However, the possible contribution of fishing-related mechanical damage to fishes, in the form of net entanglement for fin ray deformities and hook-and-line capture forjaw deformities, has not been investigated.


Fishing PressureThe Bay’s resources have been exploited seasonally since the late 1700s, when Biscayne Bay was visited by the migrantfishing fleet of Gloucester, Massachusetts, and even earlier by the Tequesta Indians. Over the past 40 years, recreational fleetexpansion has followed human population growth, which went from a couple of hundred thousand to several million people.There is a perception that commercial and recreational fishing have contributed substantially to resource change inBiscayne Bay. There is a perception by both scientists and fishermen that the fish stocks of the Bay have declined, but,because there have been no assessments of fish stocks or fishing rates, this is difficult to ascertain. Certainly, the past 10 yearshave seen a growing recreational fleet of “fly-netters” during winter months as well as shoreline netters, in addition to thecurrent 20-30 vessel commercial live-bait rollerframe trawlers. The live bait shrimp fleet damages hardbottom communitiesand also has a considerable fish bycatch. According to an estimate from the 1980s, more than 20% of Biscayne Bay’s bottomis swept at least four times annually by this fleet.

Urgent problems and concerns necessitated by the current or upcoming activities inand marginal to Biscayne Bay.

Our science priorities and recommendations are, of necessity, somewhat reordered by the several ongoing orproposed changes or stresses that are or will dramatically influence the Biscayne Bay Ecosystem. These are:

• Redesign and replumbing of the Everglades (Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and Lower East CoastWater Supply Plan)

• Development of former Homestead Air Force Base

• Miami River and Military Canal contamination and cleanup

• Malfunctioning deep-well injection in south and possibly north Miami-Dade

• Port of Miami dredging, expansion, vessel resuspension and opportunities to improve circulation

• Marina development

• Virginia Key development

• Landfills in south Miami-Dade, Virginia Key and Munisport.

• New rock pit permits

OVERARCHING SCIENCE RECOMMENDATIONS1. Using ecological criteria, determine the quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of freshwater flow needed to

protect and restore Biscayne Bay and to reestablish a viable estuarine ecosystem in the nearshore and coastalwetland zone of western Biscayne Bay.

(This information is urgently needed in major water management planning processes already well underway that will affectfreshwater flow to Biscayne Bay. Thus definition of biological targets leads to definition of target salinity envelopes that leadto definition of target freshwater inflows. This is critically needed to support the development of targets to guide the planningand implementation for CERP and other regional plans that could affect the watershed of the Bay. Accomplishing this taskwill require integrated hydrologic, hydrodynamic, and biological efforts, including improvements in the capability to modelfreshwater inflows to the Bay under alternative management scenarios and the capability to model salinity patterns in theBay as a function of freshwater inflows.)


a) Select appropriate biological indicators—then articulate performance measures and desirable future states[“targets”] with respect to the selected biological indicators.

b) Determine the desirable salinity range, or “salinity envelope”, to support the biological indicators and therequired location of this envelope to ensure that appropriate bottom or shoreline habitat will be availablewithin the salinity envelope.

c) Determine the freshwater inflow regime that will establish and maintain the desired salinity envelope inthe right place.

2. Determine the condition of the Bay’s fishery stocks and key components of the fish communities to comparewith past condition and to provide a baseline for following future trends.

(Examine demographics and population dynamics of recreationally or commercially important species and other key species.Determine fishing rates and the impact of fishing on population size and community structure, including effects on nontargetspecies caught and released. An assessment of fishery resources has not occurred in Biscayne Bay since 1984, during whichtime fishing pressure may have increased. Particular attention needs to be paid to populations that utilize the bay’s shallow (<1 m depth), intertidal and mangrove-lined shoreline habitats since these will be the areas most affected by planned watermanagement changes.)

3. Use available information to determine a reasonable anticipated rise in sea level during the next century (a 0.6-1.2 m [2-4 ft] rise is generally recognized), and use geologic knowledge to carefully evaluate the resultingchanges that will occur to Biscayne Bay, its margins, circulation, freshwater inflow, and habitats in response tothis effect of global warming over the next 50 to 100 years. Incorporate resulting models of the futureBiscayne Bay in consideration in all management, policy, economic, and remediation decisions.

(The above research/modeling exercise will provide a visual model of future changes in the configuration of the substrate andthe Bay margins, circulation, salinity, distribution of habitats, and foci of human stress over the next century. This willprovide the foundation for all long-term management, legislative and policy strategies.)

4. Develop and implement a system for quantifying and monitoring the sources, fluxes, and fates of nutrients andcontaminants entering Biscayne Bay and evaluating their biological effects.

(Monitoring data provides a basis for describing geographic and temporal patterns in water and sediment concentrations butmust be coupled with hydrologic data to develop dynamic estimates of pollutant loading and nutrient mass balance. Inaddition, there is little information on atmospheric deposition of nutrients or contaminants. Information on fluxes related tosediments is nonexistent. There is little information on body burdens in fish and shellfish and little information on acute orchronic effects of contaminants known to be present in the Bay or canals that discharge into the Bay. Such data are neededto evaluate potential human health implications and ecological risks.)

a) Acquire and integrate data on freshwater inputs and nutrient/toxicant concentrations.

b) Acquire hydrodynamic transport and mixing data.

c) Acquire data on sediment deposition and flux rates of contaminants.

d) Develop calibrated, verified hydrodynamic model to predict transport, deposition, and flux.

e) Develop water quality, sediment flux model.

f) Determine the effect of exposure to contaminants in surface water and sediments on local plant andanimal populations.

g) Develop ecological models to predict ecological consequences of nutrient and toxicant loads.


5. Develop a quantitative understanding of sources of turbidity, interactions of turbidity and the benthic commu-nity, and effects of physical disturbance on the benthic communities maintaining sediment stability.

6. Develop a spatially detailed understanding of the permeability of the Biscayne aquifer as related to groundwaterseepage to the Bay.

7. Develop an integrated understanding of freshwater inflows, salinity, circulation, and mass transport as theyrelate to all of the above recommendations.

a) Further develop, calibrate, and verify appropriate hydrodynamic models.

b) Obtain the additional data needed to adequately develop, calibrate, and verify the hydrodynamic models.

c) Form linkages to freshwater inflow, water quality, sediment flux, and ecological models.

d) Apply the models to freshwater inflow, circulation, and water and sediment quality issues.

e) Conduct a peer review of hydrodynamic models available for Biscayne Bay to develop an understanding ofthe relative strengths, weaknesses, and applicability of the various models. Use appropriate modeling todevelop an understanding of salinity, circulation, and mass transport as it relates to major issues.

8. Continue to support major ongoing wetland restoration projects in Biscayne Bay, while at the same timedeveloping a process for periodic scientific review of the Bay’s restoration needs and restoration approachesand the development and implementation of an integrated restoration program to meet the needs.

9. Provide funding for a multi-year science program in Biscayne Bay.

It is critical that scientists become an integral part of the design, promotion and evaluation of research and moni-toring efforts for the betterment of Biscayne Bay. For this purpose, we recommend forming a permanent BiscayneBay Science Committee for Biscayne Bay. Responsibilities of the Committee will be:

a) To be associated with the Science Coordination Team (SCT) of the South Florida Ecosystem RestorationTask Force and to interact with the Biscayne Bay Issue Team to be formed as recommended by theBiscayne Bay Partnership Initiative.

b) To focus primarily on Biscayne Bay science issues, including those related to the Comprehensive Ever-glades Restoration Plan.

c) To provide input to and rigorous peer review of a strategic science plan for Biscayne Bay and assure itsappropriate evolution over the coming years once such a plan has been put forward;

d) To help facilitate annual conferences and topical workshops to assure the widest possible dissemination ofthe relevant scientific information;

e) To facilitate education and outreach activities relating to Biscayne Bay and its ecosystem;

f) To interact with the state of Florida and relevant federal agencies to develop funding mechanisms suffi-cient to address the long term technical and scientific needs and to promote in-place funding for researchand monitoring needs for catastrophic events, both natural and anthropogenic;

g) To appoint, with concurrence of the Biscayne Bay Issue Team, an Independent Science Oversight Panel toanalyze the scientific pertinence and validity of publicly-funded research, monitoring and restorationmethods, data, conclusions, and recommendations.

h) To interact with research scientists and program managers to assure maintenance of the highest qualityresearch, monitoring and restoration activities.


State funds will be required to staff the Biscayne Bay Science Advisory Committee and the Science Oversight Panel,provide travel compensation for members, etc. The chair of this committee would be a member of the SFER Biscayne BayIssue Team should one be established.

10. Create a vigorous Biscayne Bay environmental education program on the value of Biscayne Bay’s importantplant and animal communities, how to enhance the quality of Biscayne Bay’s environments, and how toprevent damage to the most critical elements and species of concern.

(Education of the public youth and adults will lead to more responsible and respectful use of Biscayne Bay and itsresources.)

11. Facilitate the development of a Biscayne Bay web site devoted to disseminating research findings relevant toBiscayne Bay restoration, and land-use planning.

12. Promote the annual publication or posting of syntheses, evaluation, and interpretation of all publicly fundedmonitoring results, scientific reports, and data from monitoring under permits.

13. Ensure that publicly funded research, monitoring, and restoration data and information are maintained in anopenly available web-based GIS database form easily and quickly available to other scientists and the public.Data should be layered to contain all historical and future publicly funded scientific research, modeling, andmonitoring data and results, including all data generated for government agencies by the public for permitingand enforcement actions (biological and water quality monitoring reports). (Though open to all, it should to bespecifically designed for scientific and management needs.)

RECOMMENDATIONS BY BREAKOUT GROUPSGeology, Sedimentology, Climate, and Sea LevelGroup Recommendations

1. Better Document The 3-Dimensional Limestone Control On Groundwater/ Surface Water Flow And OnResulting Benthic Community Distribution And Bay Circulation.

(Justification: Although the surficial limestone is highly porous and permeable, the actual lateral and vertical flow may bestrongly confined and directed by inhomogenieties. These inhomogenieties strongly define the resulting lateral and verticalmovement of groundwater and the interaction of surface water and groundwater interaction. This is, however poorlydocumented.)

Specific Science Recommendations

a) Document the 3-dimensional permeability patterns and groundwater flow of the surficial aquifer beneaththe mainland marginal to Biscayne Bay. Determine the source of waters entering the Bay from artesiansprings, the exchange between surficial water and shallow groundwater, and the influence of canal cuts in3-dimensional flow patterns.

(Justification: The upper portion of the limestone is commonly considered unconfined and homogeneous. As exp


lained in the text, this is incorrect, and the inhomogenieties greatly affect the 3-dimensional movement of groundwater.)

b) Document the amount of inflow and outflow of freshwater and salt water and freshwater into and out ofthe substrate in areas of exposed limestone in Biscayne Bay. Determine the relative importance of generalrock porosity versus solution pipe porosity providing this flow. (Justification: The role of artesian freshwatersprings in delivering water to Biscayne Bay is significant but undocumented. Not only is it important to know howmuch is entering the Bay through various sources, but also, in the case of springs, where is the water coming fromand are any of the sources contaminated.)

c) Define the nutrient/pollutant loads being provided by canals, surficial sheet flow and groundwater flowinto Biscayne Bay. (Justification: This must be resolved to provide a background to reducing contaminant andtoxicant inputs.)

d) Assess the effect of the historical 0.7' rise in sea level on surface water/groundwater flow and salineintrusion. Assess the effect of a further 2.0' and 4.0' rise in sea level on the surface water/groundwaterhydrology of western Biscayne Bay and the adjacent mainland. (Justification: With sea level rise the freshwaterhead has lessened and the balance of surface and groundwater contribution changed. In a system as low in elevationas southeast Florida, the role of changing sea level must be incorporated into present and future hydrologic models.)

2. Increase Water Clarity, Thus Improving Benthic Community Distribution

The following measures should increase water clarity in the area north of Rickenbacker Causeway so that sea grassand hard bottom communities can increase their depth range and begin to move into the remaining artificiallydeepened dredged bottoms.

Specific Science-generated Management and Action Recommendations

2.1. Recovering Northern Biscayne Bay. A report on sources and circulation of turbidity in Biscayne Bay in 1983(Wanless, et al) recommended a series of steps to ameliorate the urbanization-generated deterioration of waterclarity, increase in turbidity, and loss of important benthic communities. These recommendations (updated) are asfollows:

a) Re-establish viable mangrove communities along the margin of as much of the natural and artificialshorelines of northern Biscayne Bay as possible, both public and private frontages. These should be ofsufficient width to permit areas for trapping and binding of introduced sediment.(Justification: The coastal mangrove community is important in removing turbidity from tidal waters, baffling waveenergy, stabilizing the substrate, and providing habitat for juvenile fish species and species of critical concern.)

b) Eliminate all unbulkheaded shorelines of raw loose sediment fill. These shorelines should be converted tomangrove, clean beach sand or riprap.(Justification: Unbulkheaded fill shorelines are prime sources of long-term persistent fine particulate sedimentrelease and significantly contribute to the elevated turbidity levels of central and northern Biscayne Bay.)

c) All vertical concrete sea wall shorelines should be fronted by either riprap or a mangrove communityband.(Justification: Shorelines of natural limestone boulders (rip rap) or mangrove will ( i) adsorb rather than reflectincoming wave energy and (ii) host a water-clarifying benthic or intertidal community. Vertical seawalls increaseday-to-day wave energy in northern Biscayne Bay by reflecting boat wakes. As a result, the shallow benthiccommunities are stressed and resuspension if fine sediment is increased.)

d) All artificially deepened dredged areas that are not necessary for boat traffic should be modified to promotea water-clarifying benthic community by shallowing the bottom with fill to a depth of less than six feet


and planting seagrasses or using clean construction debris to create artificial hardbottom community reefs.(Justification: Shallowing deep dredged bottoms will permit re-establishment of substrate-stabilizing communities,increase Bay productivity and reduce soft bare bottom areas that are responsible for much of the resuspendedturbidity in northern Biscayne Bay.)

e) To prevent the migration of flocculent bottom material (ooze) to sites of resuspension, all artificiallydeepened dredged areas should be bounded by berms six feet or less in depth. Berms should be planted withseagrasses for stabilization.(Justification: The flocculent surface of the deeper bare bottom areas in northern Biscayne Bay commonly deepenand constrict at gaps between causeway islands. As a result, the tidal currents focused at these necks constantlyresuspend bottom flocculent matter that migrates towards the deeper necks. Shallow underwater berms wouldisolate off deeper dredged areas away from the channel necks.)

f) The introduction of turbidity and nutrients through natural and artificial canals and channels should bemonitored, and, if significant, flow modified or berms created to limit these sources.(Justification: Canals commonly receive both fine sediment deposition from Biscayne Bay. Pollutants and toxicantsfrom freshwater runoff also enter the canals and commonly adhere to the fine particles. Re-release of this finesediment back to the Bay [during flood discharge events] both increases the amount of fine sediment and turbidity inthe Bay and introduces adsorbed contaminants.)

2.2. Improving and Protecting All of Biscayne Bay. Most important in improving and protecting the water claritythroughout Biscayne Bay is honestly addressing physical stresses of boat activity. (We must treat boat traffic across theshallow benthic communities of Biscayne Bay in the same way that we treat vehicular traffic on land, controlling speeds,prohibiting digging up of the roadbed, restricting vehicles from driving on the vegetative communities in our parks andgardens, and limiting the travel of trucks.)

Specific Science Recommendationsa) Quantify the impact and short- and long-term stresses to water clarity and benthic communities caused by

boating activity, and monitor the changes in water clarity and benthic community health as modificationsto permitted boating activity are made. (Justification: With increased use of medium to large boats in BiscayneBay, bottom resuspension, bottom scour and damage to benthic communities can be expected. Commercial andrecreational use of the Bay’s waters should not degrade the water or the benthic communities of the Bay.)


b) Eliminate use of large thrust commercial boats, tugs, and barges from southern Biscayne Bay. The Tug/barge delivering diesel fuel to Turkey Point is a blatant example. (Justification: Commercial and recreationaluse of the Bay’s waters should not degrade the water or the benthic communities of the Bay.)

c) Limit all boats with large thrust and wake to idle speed if in other than the main east-west shippingchannels to and from the Bay. (Justification: This will encourage the larger and more powerful boats to traveloffshore, the place for which they were designed.)

d) Better mark channels through the Safety Valve, Featherbed Bank and other shallow areas. (Justification:This will reduce the damage to sea grasses caused by prop scour and excavation.)

e) Have map boards at marinas with directions, notification of penalties for bay bottom damage and educa-tion on value of benthic communities. (Justification: Education and guidance is fundamental to improvedboating practices.)


f) Have brochures provided with boat tag renewals, with marine officer citations, at all put ins, and at marinestores that provide directions, notification of penalties for bay bottom damage and education on value ofbenthic communities. (Justification: Education and guidance is fundamental to improved boating practices.)

3. Predict Future Evolution of Biscayne Bay In Response To Hurricanes, And Sea Level Rise And IncorporateThis In To Management, Legislation And Policy Decisions.

(It is imperative that the high probability for significant future sea level rise be addressed head on. A recent discussion inScience demonstrates the cost, waste and increased risk that occurs if the reality of future sea level rise is not incorporated into planning and design for the future of low-lying coastal cities (Ammerman and McClennen, 2000). The following areconsidered high priority recommendation as they provide the foundation for modeling and design of the Biscayne Bay of thefuture.)


a) Assess the quantitative effect of the past 70 years of increased rate of relative sea level rise on the environ-ments and waters in and marginal to Biscayne Bay. (Justification: The 0.7-foot rise in sea level over the past 70years is about 7 times faster than the rate over the past 2,000 years. As a result there have already beenfundamental changes in the stability of the coastlines, wetlands, mudbanks, circulation, and hydrology of BiscayneBay.)

b) Using knowledge of the response of coastal and shallow marine environments to differing rates of relativesea level rise (from geologic studies of south Florida), assess how the coastal and shallow marine environ-ments in various settings of Biscayne Bay will respond over the next 100 years to a further sea level rise of2 and 4 feet.

• Create a map and dynamic model of how the marine, coastal and upland environments in andmarginal to Biscayne Bay will look in 50 and 100 years with a 2- and a 4-foot rise in relative sealevel.

• Assess areas, rates, amounts and types of erosion that will occur in destabilized sediment bodies inand marginal to Biscayne Bay for the four models.

• From these four maps and dynamic models, define the changes in the interaction of Biscayne Baywaters with the surface and ground waters of the coastal ridge and Everglades Basin.

• From this, define the resulting patterns of circulation, salinity and residence time for waters inBiscayne Bay.

• And from this, project the distribution of benthic communities in Biscayne Bay.

• Identify areas in which human intervention can ameliorate the negative environmental effects ofincreased rates of rising sea level, and those areas in which current or anticipated human activi-ties will negatively accentuate the consequences of rising sea level.

(Justification: The above research/modeling exercise will provide a visual model of future changes in the configuration of thesubstrate and the Bay margins, circulation, salinity, distribution of habitats, and foci of human stress over the next century.This will provide the foundation for all long-term management, legislative and policy strategies.)


Specific Science-generated Management and Action Recommendationsc) Incorporate the reality of the historical rapid rise in sea level and the high probability of further future

increases in the rate of sea level rise into every aspect of planning for the future of Biscayne Bay andMiami-Dade County. (Justification: Without using the produced knowledge of the future of Biscayne Bay,management and policy decisions will be meaningless and likely environmentally and economically harmful to theBay and the people of south Florida.)

Hydrodynamics and Mass TransportGroup RecommendationsThere is a close relationship between water management, salinities, and water quality in Biscayne Bay. The temporal andspatial variation of salinity is a major controlling factor on the type and growth of fish populations and benthic communi-ties. To properly estimate salinities and effects of point and non-point sources on Biscayne Bay water quality, better informa-tion on freshwater inflows and atmospheric forcing are needed in conjunction with predictive hydrodynamic and masstransport models. To fulfill these needs will require the following developments:

1) Determine the quality, quantity and timing of fresh water discharges to the bay from all sources, present andpredrainage.

2) Develop a peer-reviewed, calibrated, verified hydrodynamic model of the Bay circulation, salinity distribution(including the western fringe), and exchanges with the coastal ocean, and which is or can be coupled toatmospheric forcing, water quality, and biological models.

3) Use the hydrodynamic model and other analytical tools to help evaluate ramifications of all scenarios of alteredphysical conditions, such as changes in freshwater inflow, dredging and filling, sea level rise, hurricanes andstorms, etc.

4) Hindcast predrainage circulation and salinity patterns.

5) Water quality including suspended solids resulting from point and non-point sources of pollution is a criticalconcern. “End effects” ecological models coupled with the hydrodynamic models are needed. Traditionalnutrient/primary production type models are likely useful only as research tools for a long time to come. Toprepare for these models, hydrodynamic transport and mixing data are needed.

6) Develop a better understanding of the water wave climate and the effect of waves on bottom re-suspension andsurf zone mixing processes that need to be included in predictive models.

7) Develop a suite of Biscayne Bay endpoints (important characteristics, e.g. salinity patterns, distribution ofjuvenile shrimp) and model output parameters for water quality and biological communities that can bemonitored to assess the state of the Bay. Ensure that the endpoints are considered in numerical model selec-tion, grid design, data collection, and model development.

8) Develop a long-term monitoring strategy of important physical/biological parameters based on identifiedBiscayne Bay endpoints and model output parameters. Where feasible transmit data in real-time for use inpredictive models to detect changes in the state-of-the-bay.

9) Develop the capability to evaluate and predict the effect of shoreline/Bay development on Bay water qualityusing hydrodynamic models and associated water quality and biological ecological models.


10) Assemble a group of individuals knowledgeable in oceanographic and hydrologic data collection, data analysis,hydrodynamic, water quality and biological modeling, model application, and familiar with local conditions toparticipate in the above efforts.

Watershed HydrologyGroup RecommendationsThe following section contains a number of general recommendations. Each general recommendation is followed by anexplanation, as well as a number of recommended specific projects and specific recommended management actions that areneeded with regard to the recommendation. While the specific projects, research, or actions listed under each recommenda-tion are important, the lists are not intended to be exclusive or exhaustive-and other approaches that would achieve thesame objectives are acceptable.

1. Review and refine estimates of predevelopment, historic, and present fresh water inflow to the Bay.

(Gaps and uncertainties in our knowledge of present and past freshwater inflows need to be resolved to more reliablydetermine the Bay’s freshwater inflow needs. Post-drainage historic flow is incomplete because groundwater and overlandflow information are lacking. A better understanding of natural, or “pre-drainage”, freshwater flow to the Bay wouldprovide perspective on Biscayne Bay’s present freshwater needs and help develop restoration targets for Biscayne NationalPark. Paleoecological approaches to identifying the salinity requirements of species that once lived in the Bay provide anobjective means of determining the Bay’s past salinity patterns; and past freshwater inflows can be inferred from salinity.)

Related Specific Scientific Recommendations:

a) Conduct sediment and coral studies to determine past salinity patterns.

b) Use information about salinity tolerances and preferences of salinity dependent species, including estua-rine dependent species, known to have once occurred in Biscayne Bay, to infer past salinity conditions inthe Bay. Conduct biological studies to acquire additional information, where needed.

c) Complete finer-scale (than the 2 miles x 2 miles) and salinity interface modeling needed to evaluate watermanagement effects on freshwater flows to Biscayne Bay.

d) Reexamine changes in flows to Biscayne Bay expected from CERP (excluding the Water Reuse option)using models with finer resolution and a salinity interface capability.

e) Develop and implement a practical routine protocol for estimating direct rainfall and evaporation onBiscayne Bay and its watershed, including the addition of rainfall measurement capability to existing fixedstations in the Bay. Extend the data spatially using NEXRAD and historically using existing nearby long-term meteorological stations.

2. Characterize the chemical, biological, and physical environments in the near-shore areas of Biscayne Bay.

(The western nearshore part of the Bay is the area most subject to change in freshwater inflow and associated water quality,but little information is available on this dynamic area, partly because it is difficult to reach. More detailed knowledge of thisarea is needed to design restoration elements of CERP. Needed studies include; 1) surface and ground water flow character-ization; 2) benthic and biologic surveys, 3) detailed water quality surveys, 4) detailed topographic and bathymetric data, and4) long-term, detailed hydrodynamic studies of salinity, water movement, and water depth along the shoreline, in coastalcreeks, and within the mangrove fringe.)


Related Specific Science Recommendations:a) Conduct detailed survey of substrates and benthic community types.

b) Acquire detailed long-term water level and salinity and current measurements along the coast and withinthe mangrove creeks (establish long term monitoring stations in the western nearshore area).

c) Determine spatial and temporal distribution and abundance of fish and invertebrates

d) Determine benthic flux of fresh water and water quality parameters

e) Couple an appropriate hydrodynamic model, which predicts salinity and circulation, with a model or othersuitable tool that can predict water quality and indicator species distributions

f) Continue and expand sediment studies to determine historic and pre-drainage salinity patterns, especiallyin western nearshore areas.

g) Develop a model or other appropriate tool suitable for studying the interaction of the intertidal andnearshore regions of Biscayne Bay to support design and planning of CERP’s Biscayne Bay Coastal Wet-lands component.

h) Acquire information about the western nearshore part of the Bay needed by existing hydrodynamic modelsin order to improve their resolution and accuracy in this ecologically important area, including (i) verti-cally- and horizontally-detailed topographic and bathymetric data for use in determining wetting anddrying under various tidal stages and mean, (ii) refined freshwater inflow data, and (iii) spatially detailedinformation on water level, salinity. (This is particularly important in South Biscayne Bay, where an extensive,largely continuous fringe of coastal wetlands borders the Bay south of Matheson Hammock Park.)

i) Design and establish an expanded long term monitoring network in the Bay to collect detailed salinity andwater quality information, with particular attention to the western nearshore regions and the mangrovecreeks. (Integrate and expand existing water quality/salinity monitoring network, establish long-term monitoringstations in the western nearshore area, and employ continuous recording devices to collect data wherever feasible.)

3. Identify indicator species for Biscayne Bay in terms of salinity and habitat needs to help develop targets forCERP and Minimum Flows and Levels.

(The key to establishing the freshwater needs of Biscayne Bay is to define these needs in terms of the salinity requirements ofcharacteristic species and communities and then to relate magnitude and timing of freshwater inflow to salinity patterns.Information about indicators and their requirements will provide a basis for establishing biological criteria, or performancemeasures, that will be used to evaluate how well CERP is meeting restoration objectives with respect to Biscayne Bay andhow well LECWSP is avoiding significant harm to the Bay. A scientific rationale for each selection must be provided, alongwith documentation on optimal salinity (a salinity envelope), optimal physical habitat (bottom type, bottom cover, depth,and distance from shoreline), and tolerance to salinity fluctuation.)

Related Specific Science Recommendations:

a) Identification, justification, and documentation of a set of appropriate indicator species and communitiescharacteristic of the Bay whose distributions are likely to be influenced by changes in salinity.

b) Biologic studies on salinity and habitat requirements of juveniles of ecologically or economically importantestuarine species that would be expected to use the western nearshore Bay as a nursery ground.


4. Set restoration salinity targets and locations (i.e. wet and dry season salinity envelopes in appropriate bottom orshoreline habitat).

(Definition of the appropriate range and placement of salinity envelopes is a critical link in determining Biscayne Bay’sfreshwater inflow needs. “Salinity envelope” is a simple term referring to the combination of appropriate salinity range,fluctuation, and habitat that should exist in an estuary. Salinity envelopes have been developed by the South Florida WaterManagement District for other South Florida estuaries as a prerequisite to the necessary determination of freshwater inflowrestoration targets and minimum flows and levels.)

Related Specific Science Recommendations:a) Use the information provided by the recommended biological studies to determine the salinity ranges and

salinity fluctuations, specific to season and location, that would be appropriate to maintain key indicatorspecies. Document this information and use it as the basis for biologic and hydrologic performancemeasures and targets that can be used to evaluate regional water management alternatives and to monitorthe success of alternatives as they are implemented.

b) Determine the locations of appropriate bottom and/or shoreline habitat for the species and the appropriateplacement of the salinity envelope to ensure that desirable salinity coincides with appropriate habitat.

5. Develop flow regimes (quantity, timing, and distribution) that produce the desired salinity envelopes.

(Appropriate predictive tools to relate water management to salinity patterns are critical to protect and restore the Bay in thedetailed design stage of CERP and in setting Minimum Flows and Levels for implementation of LECRWSP. Water manage-ment for drainage and flood control has altered freshwater inflows to the Bay. CERP and LECRWSP, when implemented,will further change freshwater inflow to the Bay. These plans have an adaptive assessment process to restore, or at leastprotect, the Bay ecosystem. Their adaptive processes depend on predictive models to link the salinity requirements of keyindicator species and communities to the freshwater inflows required to maintain these salinities in the specific locationswhere other suitable habitat conditions are found.)

Related Specific Science Recommendations:a) Develop a regression or time series model to estimate salinity patterns in the western nearshore Bay as a

function of the recent history of freshwater inflow. Development of a regression or time series model willrequire the acquisition of a time series salinity data synoptic with freshwater inflow data. The record mustbe sufficiently long and varied to cover a wide range of possible freshwater inflow and salinity conditions.(The regression model will fulfill a vital function until hydrodynamic models to predict salinity patterns in thewestern nearshore Bay are operational.)

b) Couple surface water and groundwater models to a hydrodynamic model to simulate and predict salinitydistributions in response to water deliveries. The desired salinity envelopes can then be matched byadjusting freshwater inputs into the hydrodynamic model. Seasonal and year-to-year variations of freshwa-ter inputs should be simulated in the coupled model.

c) Review and improve appropriate hydrodynamic models of the Bay and integrate them with ground andsurface water models that can provide appropriate and accurate watershed boundary conditions. Seasonaland year-to-year variations of freshwater inputs should be simulated with the coupled model. Continue toimprove the performance and resolution of the coupled surface water-groundwater-hydrodynamic modelusing data from the expanded monitoring network.


d) When operational, use the model to determine the quantity, timing, and distribution of flows (or refineestimates of flow provided by regression or time series models) required to maintain the salinity envelope(i.e., target salinity range) in areas of suitable bottom and/or shoreline habitat.

e) Apply performance measures to evaluate existing conditions in the Bay (baseline measurement), to testand compare proposed new managed inflow regimes, and to evaluate progress toward meeting biologicaland salinity targets. Define measurable success realistically (allowing for occasional departures from salinityenvelopes).

f) Apply performance measures and targets to establish Minimum Flows and Levels for Biscayne Bay toensure that significant harm from lack of freshwater inflow will not be experienced in any part of the Bay,including extreme southern areas (i.e., Card Sound, Little Card Sound, Barnes Sound, Manatee Bay) thatare of particular concern because they are at the most downstream end of the water management system.

6. Identify and acquire additional coastal lands necessary for flow redistribution.

(Freshwater flow to Biscayne Bay will provide greater biological benefits if it enters through coastal wetlands and tidal creeksrather than as a point source because the fresh to brackish wetland zone provides essential nursery and feeding habitat forestuarine fish, invertebrates, and other wildlife. An almost continuous mangrove shoreline fringe exists from MathesonHammock Park to US 1 at Jewfish Creek that provides an opportunity to redirect some canal flows through coastal wet-lands. Land near the coast may be required to store water captured during the wet season for release to the Bay in the dryseason, and/or provide groundwater recharge. Land used for these purposes must be in public ownership or flowage ease-ments must be acquired.)

Related Specific Science-generated Management and Action Recommendations:a) Assess land needs for flow redistribution and other restoration projects.

b) Assign the highest priority for public acquisition to needed parcels and move to acquire them immediately.

7. Develop the capability to predict water quality changes and resultant effects on the Bay’s biological integritythat might occur with proposed water management changes.

(An ability to predict the loads, water quality, and biological effects of change in water management is needed to protectBiscayne Bay. Predictive models or other appropriate tools relating flows to water quality should be developed, and potentialbiological indicators of water quality should be selected. Selections should be on the basis of presence (or potential presence)in the Bay at locations most likely to experience change and sensitivity to the types of water quality changes that might occur,including changes in nutrient, toxicant, or other pollutant loading.)

Related Specific Science Recommendations:a) Develop a model or other appropriate water quality tool to predict loading of nutrients, toxicants, and

other pollutants to the Bay as a function of water management.

b) Develop, test, and verify a water quality model or other appropriate water quality tool that can be linkedto the hydrodynamic model and receive input from the loading model to predict the effects of watermanagement changes on water and sediment quality in the Bay.

c) Develop and document water quality indicators and performance measures that can be used to evaluateeffects of water management changes on the biological integrity of the Bay. Emphasis should be on the useof biological indicators that are sensitive to change in water quality.


8. Determine the importance of fresh water springs to the quantity and distribution of freshwater inflow toBiscayne Bay, past, present, and future.

(Historically, springs emanated from the bottom of the Bay through natural leakage channels occurring in the rock forma-tions. An unknown portion of the groundwater flow may be discharging via these springs and their existence may affectpredictions of groundwater flow by existing models. A series of projects are suggested to provide an indication of the signifi-cance of spring discharge to groundwaterflow to Biscayne Bay and to evaluate whether existing groundwater models can beimproved by the acquisition of further information on springs in the Bay and associated channels in the aquifer. The steps areto locate springs, locate channels that relate to springs, and quantify the amount of discharge from these in relation to thesurrounding aquifer.)

Related Specific Science Recommendations:a) Interview fishermen and other knowledgeable locals regarding the existence of springs in the bay.

b) To locate possible channels within the aquifer, measure tidal propagation inland by comparing fluctuationin the water table or pieziometric surface in a series of groundwater monitoring wells at the same distancefrom the coastline with tidal amplitude in adjacent coastal waters. Wells with substantially higher ratios ofsurface fluctuation to tidal amplitude will indicate sites of greater permeability and higher rates of ground-water flow to the coast.

c) Conduct studies such as airborne thermal infrared surveys or resistivity surveys to locate springs within theBay. Special emphasis should be placed on opportunistic sampling after high rainfall events.

d) Once located, install seepage meters on the springs to measure the flow and sample the discharged water todetermine its salinity and other water quality parameters of interest.

e) Locate the inland points of recharge to investigate the possibly of maintaining higher ground water levelsin those areas to promote spring discharge and also identifying and controlling potential sources ofpollution.

Priority Related Specific Science Recommendations:

a) Conduct studies to determine the magnitude and ecological ramifications of changes in and redistributionof freshwater inflows to Biscayne Bay.

b) Establish hydrologic, biological, and water quality indicators, benchmarks, and targets based on biologicalneeds and historic and pre-drainage conditions to help establish minimum flows and levels for LECWSPand to provide design criteria and performance measures for CERP.

c) Determine the appropriate redistribution of water to restore fresh to brackish water wetlands and providesustained freshwater flows along the western shoreline of South Biscayne Bay.

d) Review, refine, and integrate hydrologic and hydrodynamic models so that realistic predictions of freshwa-ter flows to the Bay and resultant salinity patterns under different water management scenarios can becompared.

e) Provide a baseline of current conditions for comparison with post project monitoring.


Priority Specific Science-generated Management and Action Recommendations:a) Provide flexibility to the water management system to allow storage of wet season water excess to provide

needed dry season flows.

b) Support the rapid development of restoration targets based on pristine and historic conditions andbiological indicators.

c) Determine how best to redistribute point source canal discharges to sheetflow and natural creek systems inthe Biscayne Coastal Wetlands and C111 components of CERP. This includes identification and purchaseof needed lands.

Coupling Fish Communities, Environment, and Human InteractionsGroup Recommendations

The future of Biscayne Bay depends on management of the effects from human population growth and economic activities.The function and dynamics of the Bay’s critical resources need to be understood to effectively address management andsustainability issues currently faced. The most serious immediate problem is alteration in freshwater inflows. What isurgently needed is the capability to reliably predict the effects of altered upstream water management. Sound predictionsdepend on development of an integrated view of the coupled human and natural processes regulating ecosystem dynamics inthe Bay. Focused biological and physico-chemical research is essential to developing this view. A robust ecosystem-widestrategy to monitor the Bay’s ecological condition is critical. An integrated program of monitoring, process studies, andinterdisciplinary modeling that contains the following elements is recommended.

1) Investigate historical salinity conditions

(Justification: while it is generally believed that Biscayne Bay was more estuarine in the past, the actual salinity distributionin the Bay prior to water management and human development impacts is not well known. A view of the Bay’s pastfreshwater inflows is needed as a reference point and perspective for ecological restoration.)


a) Conduct a background synthesis on the range and dynamics of ‘pre-European settlement’ salinity condi-tions that existed prior to 1700 using a strategic combination of literature synthesis, numerical modeling,and paleo -ecological studies on foraminifera abundance and oyster bar distributions.

2) Monitor pink shrimp, blue crab and juvenile fishes

(Justification: These species constitute something of a special case since they can be sampled (and have been sampled) as partof an integrated trawl-based monitoring effort. Given their trophic importance and demonstrated sensitivity to salinitydistribution change these efforts need to be continued and expanded)

Specific Science Recommendationsa) Expand baywide and continue as restoration proceeds, a field monitoring effort directed at quantifying the

abundance and distribution pink shrimp, blue crab and juvenile fishes.


b) A disease and abnormality component should be integrated within this effort with expertise and fieldpersonnel specific to this purpose.

3) Monitor fish utilization of Bay’s shallow and shoreline habitats

(Justification: Shoreline habitats are the first and most significant areas to be affected by proposed changes in watermanagement policies in Biscayne Bay).


a) Particular attention needs to be paid to populations that utilize the bay’s shallow (< 1 m depth), intertidaland mangrove-lined shoreline habitats wheres within the Bay salinity changes will be greatest.

4) Conduct before-after ecological studies associated with Coastal Wetlands Component.

(Justification: The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Component hasthe potential to effect major changes in the extent of available wetlands if implemented.

Specific Science Recommendationsa) Appropriate “before-after” ecological studies need to be done in conjunction with this restoration project

since it directly affects one of the principal contiguous Sub ecosystems in the Bay.

b) These studies should be extended well beyond the immediate zone of influence of the project to ensurethat a complete understanding of project effects is achieved and that effective and timely changes aremade to improve project performance over the course of its’ implementation

5) Monitor exploited species populations and fisheries.

(Justification: Changes in exploited species populations and fisheries have substantial social and economic consequences)

Specific Science Recommendationsa) Basic demographic and population-dynamic data on stock abundance, age, size structure, growth, and

reproduction are needed.

b) Rates of fishing pressure/exploitation are also required for resource assessment, and fishery managementpurposes and to parse out restoration effects from over-fishing.

c) As part of this effort, further research is necessary to establish the extent to which mechanical damagefrom trawling and dredging activities directly and indirectly affect the bay’s fish assemblages, including thequantification of habitat recovery rates of the resilience and stability of key resources.

6) Determine habitat value of altered and restored habitats north of Rickenbacker Causeway.

(Justification: This area is especially characterized by man-made structures, shorelines and altered benthic habitatsand has unfortunately been inadequately sampled over the last decade in comparison with south Biscayne Bay)


a) Determine the fish and invertebrate diversity, distribution, population size structure, abundance anddynamics of the bay north of Rickenbacker Causeway.


b) Fishery resource monitoring of areas enhanced or restored by Miami-Dade County should be specificallyincluded in this effort since local differences are expected as a result of these local actions and mightconfound interpretation relative to overall restoration effects.

7) Conduct laboratory studies on salinity effects.

(Justification: the primary effect of CERP is expected to be alteration of the Bay salinity regime. Given the canalstructures pulsed introductions are typical and we need better understanding of physiological responses to suchrealistic stresses not just overall “salinity tolerance” determination to predict population consequences).


a) Laboratory experiments on salinity effects on key (and sensitive) species are essential.

b) Specifically needed are controlled laboratory studies on the physiological impacts of variable salinityregimes (and freshwater pulse frequency, duration, and magnitude) on growth and survivorship of key lifestages of ecologically and economically important species.

8) Study creek and canal flora and fauna .

(Justification: Additional freshwater entering the Bay will be introduced through the present network of creeks andcanals the fauna and fauna of which has already been substantially altered and to which numerous exotic specieshave been introduced. We need to better characterize these populations if we are to determine what changes followrestoration actions.)


a) Quantitative characterization not just of the Bay itself but of the native and exotic flora and fauna in thelower reaches of the canals and natural creeks that flow into the Bay is essential

9) Investigate contaminant and physical stress effects on marine organisms.

(Justification: Limited information already available suggests pollutants and toxicants are reaching the Bay and that some ofthe canals are particularly contaminated. Animal abnormalities have been reported but no clear cause and effect relation-ships have been established).

Specific Science Recommendationsa) The source and distribution of pollutants and toxicants entering the Bay as well as spatio-temporal

distribution of abnormalities requires further attention.

b) Initial focus is recommended on laboratory research that examines the extent to which mechanical andtoxicant stresses, both singly and in combination, are responsible for the two major abnormalities encoun-tered in fish in the Bay, scale disorientation and fin ray deformity.

10) Develop coupled biophysical models.

(Justification: Quantitatively linking biological change to the physical changes resulting from upstream water man-agement changes requires dynamic predictive modeling of physical – biological interactions given the highly non-linear responses typical of such complex systems).


Specific Science Recommendationsa) Coupled biophysical models that predict the spatial dynamics and distribution of key upper trophic-level

resources need to be refined considerably to be useful in fishery management and coastal zone develop-ment to evaluate the ecological risks of certain development and restoration scenarios.

11) Develop spatially-explicit ecological databases.

(Justification: Testing scientific hypotheses and evaluating management alternative scenarios requires access by both thescientific and management communities to the same information base)

Specific Scientific Recommendations

a) Very high priority should be given to development of an integrated database containing all biological andphysical ‘habitat’ layers, hydrodynamic circulation, salinity and water quality variables, and commercialand recreational fisheries and ecological data.

b) High resolution habitat maps (in GIS or other visualization formats) are needed to clarify types and extentof static and dynamic habitats throughout Biscayne Bay.

c) The GIS tool should be embedded in a sophisticated database management,statistical, visualization, andmodeling system to facilitate the assessments and risk analyses required by managers

Habitat and Species of ConcernBreakout Group Recommendations

1) Delineate the distribution and quality of benthic marine, coastal wetland, coastal upland species, and species ofspecial concern.

(Justification: The distribution of benthic environments must be carefully documented prior to freshwater inflow modifica-tions to the Bay margin and for comparison to changes that may occur in response to hurricanes, unanticipated pollutionevents and sea level rise.)


a) Evaluate existing maps and quantitative spatial data for accuracy, resolution, and expected needs anddevelop a protocol for the following: Map and quantify coverage of benthic communities, includinginfauna, by species composition and density, in areas of soft-sediment seagrass cover, hard bottom, barrenbottom, coastal wetlands, and coastal uplands. Especially focus on the western portions and edge ofBiscayne Bay.

b) Delineate the distribution and density of endangered species and species of special concern in and mar-ginal to Biscayne Bay and their relation the bottom habitat.

c) Compare a) and b) with previous mappings and estimates to determine change. Determine functions andprocesses causing benthic habitat shifts in the Bay.


Specific Science-generated Management and Action Recommendationsd) Integrate current and future publicaly funded monitoring activities into a coordinated monitoring and

mapping program from Dumfoundling Bay through Biscayne Bay to Manatee Bay, with intensive, detailedobservations in the western nearshore Bay.

2) Define the salinity and freshwater inflow parameters (timing, quantity, quality and distribution) that willpermit the re-establishment of a viable estuarine ecosystem in the nearshore and coastal wetland zone ofwestern and northern Biscayne Bay.

(Justification: The loss of an inshore estuarine habitat in Biscayne Bay has degraded the overall quality, diversity andfunctionality of the Biscayne Bay ecosystem. This degradation occurred as the result of historical lowering of water levels andconverting to point source (canal) pulses of freshwater discharge. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan(CERP), which includes a Biscayne Bay Wetlands Restoration component, provides a unique opportunity to coordinate therequirements for re-establishing estuarine conditions in Biscayne Bay with the redesign and replumbing of water flow to theEverglades. It is of the highest priority to take advantage of this opportunity.)


a) Define a more natural quantity, quality, timing and distribution of freshwater flow to the wetlands marginalto western Biscayne Bay.

b) Expedite planning to determine the freshwater budget and land area needed to meet the goals of theBiscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands component of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP).

c) In designing the parameters for this restoration, attention should be given to increasing habitat forendangered species and species of concern and salinity requirements of habitat species on which they aredependent. [Most if not all of these species are discussed in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service South FloridaMulti-species Recovery Plan.]

d) Restore freshwater and saltwater wetlands in association with the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Projectof the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.

e) Provide baseline surveys and continued monitoring of wading bird and migratory bird use of restoredcoastal wetland and estuarine habitat.

Specific Science-generated Management and Action Recommendationsf) Continue to remove exotic species from the intertidal and coastal wetland and upland habitats to create

more area for native habitat species, especially as habitat for species of special concern, and maintain theseareas to prevent reinfestation.

3) In conjunction with restoration, scientific management programs for the Bay should be established for endan-gered species and species of special concern including turtles, manatees, dolphins, crocodiles, seagrasses, andselected birds such as the roseate spoonbill, brown pelican, turkey vulture, and various shorebirds.[Note: DERM already has a manatee protection plan.] [Coordinate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Multi-species Recovery Plan.]

4) Restore coastal freshwater to saltwater wetlands form Turkey Point to US1 in cooperation with the FloridaPower and Light Mitigation Bank. Complete acquisition of land available east of US 1 from Palm Drive southand restore freshwater flows through these wetlands and into extreme southern Biscayne Bay, Card Sound,Barnes Sound and Manatee Bay.


5) Evaluate the potential effect of a change in freshwater flow to North Biscayne Bay.

6) Improve design of floodgates to reduce manatee mortalities.

7) Pursue aggressive efforts that will continue the reduction in turbidity within the waters of central and northernBiscayne Bay and will reduce physical damage to benthic communities and substrate.

(Justification: Biscayne Bay is dominated by benthic communities that need clear water and a substrate that is not physicallydisturbed. Historical changes to the bay, its margins and nature of freshwater inflow have degraded the water clarity andreduced the quality and distribution of Benthic community coverage. Ongoing prop washing and scouring by boats aredamaging the communities.)

Specific Science Recommendationsa) Evaluate the impacts of turbidity on primary productivity and habitats in Biscayne Bay.

b) See section on turbidity in Geology portion.

Specific Science-generated Management and Action Recommendationsc) Finish largely completed stabilization of public vertical seawalls with natural limestone boulders and/or

planters for intertidal vegetation. Develop an incentive program to encourage private property owners toinstall natural limestone boulders in place of, or in front, of bulkheads.

d) Identify and implement ways to reduce or eliminate turbidity and bottom scour of benthic communitiesthat is due to large vessel traffic.

8) Define channels for use by larger boats to enter and egress Biscayne Bay.

9) Mark channels more effectively and improve enforcement next to important species of concern feeding orresting areas and next to important shallow habitat areas such as seagrasses, hard bottom and coral-algal fringecommunities so that turbidity and direct impact are minimized.

10) Limit turbidity laden effluents into the Bay.

11) Conduct ecotoxicology studies to document and monitor stresses and damage to endangered species, species ofspecial concern, and indicator species in benthic habitats. Use this information to guide reduction of pointsource pollution and cleanup of historical contaminant sources.

(Justification: although partly urbanized it is a fundamental goal to restore and maintain Biscayne Bay as a healthy bay for allorganisms who depend on it.)

Specific Science Recommendationsa) Continue toxicity monitoring of blood tissue samples of the resident dolphin population of Biscayne Bay as

a health indicator of Biscayne Bay.

b) See recommendations in Water and Sediment Quality section.


c) During and after proposed dredging operations in the Miami River and other channels and canals, use up-to-date technology to minimize or eliminate movements of contaminated sediment into the Bay.


d) Reduce further toxic substance input form upland sources, especially during catastrophic events such asfloods and hurricanes.

e) Review and update hazardous substance, petroleum, and sewage spill plans to make sure these provideadequate protection of habitat and for species of concern.

f) Critically review the risks of leachates to Biscayne Bay from present and past landfills, sewage dischargesites (land, sea and groundwater), and canals. Reconsider the siting of landfills and other waste disposalsites in proximity to the wetlands and waters of Biscayne Bay.

12) Document and compare the functionality and resilience of important benthic habitats throughout BiscayneBay by conducting comparative turbidity, food web, and fisheries studies in habitats of varying density andspecies composition (within the various seagrass communities, hard bottom community, coral-algal fringe commu-nity and soft bottom barren and algal mat community).

(Justification: The influence of density and species structure of different benthic habitats in supporting fish populations needsto be documented in order to guide and optimize restoration and protection plans. The role of various types of seagrasses instabilizing sediment also needs to be evaluated. These studies will also serve as a baseline from which the quality of benthiccommunity habitat can be monitored with changes management or following natural and human disasters in the Bay.)

Specific Science Recommendationsa) Document and compare the functionality and resiliency of the important benthic habitats throughout

Biscayne Bay by conducting comparative turbidity, food web and fisheries studies in habitats of varyingdensity and species composition (within the various seagrass communities, hard bottom community, coral-algal fringe community and soft bottom barren and algal mat community).

13) Review, develop, and apply scientifically and economically sound methods for restoration and maintenance offreshwater wetland, coastal wetland, coastal upland, and benthic seagrass communities.

(Justification: Methods and approaches to ecological restoration and exotic control must be agreed upon so as to be able toeffectively repair areas of damage and optimize Bay restoration efforts.)

Specific Science Recommendationsa) Hold workshops and, as necessary, conduct demonstration projects and evaluation of previous projects to

assess approaches for coastal wetlands, coastal uplands, and seagrass restoration and for control of exoticsin coastal and freshwater wetlands and coastal uplands.

b) Document rates and manner of natural re-establishment over disturbed bottom in different settings indifferent bay sectors so as to establish criteria to define when and how replanting is appropriate andnecessary for maintaining healthy benthic and wetland communities in Biscayne Bay.

c) Review, develop, and apply scientifically sound, cost-effective, and reliable methods to restore seagrasscover on banks damaged by prop scars and scours and sites affected by high turbidity and persistent waveaction (mostly by boats in portions of Biscayne Bay).


a) Continue ongoing restoration projects at Virginia Key, Chapman Field, Snapper Creek, Bill Baggs StateRecreation Area, and the Oleta River Corridor and support rehydration of Cutler Drain if feasible.


b) Ensure that restoration projects have a funded component that provides for scientific followup andmonitoring of restoration sites. Sufficient support should be provided for consistent monitoring usingscientifically sound, systematic, and quantitative procedures.

c) Ensure adequate funding for continued maintenance and exotics control on coastal wetland and coastalupland restoration projects.

14) Expand education on value of habitats, species of special concern, threats to the Bay and how individuals canmaintain and improve the quality of the habitats and species in Biscayne Bay.

(Justification: Understanding leads to support for efforts to improve the bay and leads to more respectful users of the Bay.)

a) Continue public education about the ecosystems losses that result from dumping in and polluting in theBay, damaging benthic habitats by boating activities, and not being respectful of species of concern.Provide information and warnings through dive shop and marina postings, posters, brochures and maps toinform users about habitats, species of special concern, areas to avoid or be watchful, damage caused bydifferent types of boats, and regulations.

b) Enhance Manatee education and awareness, including posting signs in manatee feeding and congregationzones.

c) Create environmental education centers at specific bayside parks for primary, middle and secondary schoolchildren. Provide labs, full displays about habitats and species of special concern, material for teachers andexhibits, which can circulate into schools. Establish “Science Outposts” with programs and facilities forstudent science research, with pilots at Oleta River and Bill Baggs State Recreational Area. [See fulldescription in recommendations from Education Team.]

d) Create curriculum for elementary schools that discuss habitats and species of concern.

e) Develop or support existing community service programs for cleaning up the Bay and its margins.

f) Publicize and enforce laws and rules that prevent damage to the Bay’s resources.

g) Mark and enforce manatee-zone speed limits.

Water and Sediment QualityBreakout Group Recommendations

1) Quantify pollutant loading to Biscayne Bay.

(Justification: Extensive monitoring data provides a basis for description of geographic and temporal patterns, but thisinformation must be coupled with hydrologic data to develop more dynamic estimates of pollutant loading and nutrient massbalance. Hydrologic models now under development are expected to provide the foundation for water quality models thatshould be useful in projecting changes in geographic patterns, trends, and loading of nutrients and contaminants. However,there are little or no data presently available on atmospheric deposition or flux rates, and little information available onsediment-water column exchange of nutrients or contaminants.


Specific Science Recommendationsa) Conduct water quality and hydrologic studies necessary to quantify pollutant loading to Biscayne Bay. This

should include studies to quantify groundwater inputs to the bay and address the role groundwater plays inpollutant loading.

b) Conduct additional studies to identify fate and transport mechanisms for contaminants in the bay system.This should include studies to address atmospheric deposition or flux rates, and provide information onsediment-water column exchange of nutrients or contaminants.

c) Conduct studies to evaluate impact of elevated nutrient levels in south Dade watershed on the receivingwaters of Biscayne National Park.

2) Refine water quality standards used to indicate the presence of sewage in surface water.

(Justification: Various techniques exist for identifying the presence of sewage in surface waters. However, each method hasinherent limitations and method performance may vary with climate. Epidemiological data on the incidence of swimming-related illness is needed to refine standards for sewage indicator organisms used in South Florida.)

Specific Science Recommendationsa) Conduct surveys to determine the incidence of swimmer related illness for public beaches in South

Florida. Correlate results from the survey with beach water quality monitoring data results to identify themost effective indicator of sewage contamination, and use this information to develop an appropriatenumerical standard.

b) Continue and expand water quality monitoring at public beaches to provide data necessary to evaluatesurvey results and provide to inform the general public.

3) Determine the effect of exposure to contaminants in surface water and sediments on local plant and animalpopulations.

(Justification: With the exception of health-risk assessments conducted in the Military Canal area, there are little dataavailable on levels of mercury or other toxic contaminants in fish and shellfish tissues for the Bay. There are also little or noinformation on the acute or chronic effects of these contaminants on resident plant and animal populations. Such data arenecessary for directing resource management efforts, and are needed to evaluate potential human-health implications ofsubsistence fishing in urban surface waters with potential water and sediment quality degradation.)

Specific Science Recommendationsa) Conduct studies of local plant and animals to determine body burdens for toxic contaminants detected in

surface water and sediments. These studies should include evaluations of species of special concern such asthe bottlenose dolphin.

b) Conduct studies of local plant and animal populations to determine effects of exposure to surface waterand sediment contaminants. These studies should address issues such as the effects of herbicides onseagrasses.


4) Determine the causes for toxicity observed in sediments from south Biscayne Bay.

(Justification: Recent studies conducted by N.O.A.A. have identified the presence of toxicity in sediments from southBiscayne Bay. However, evaluation of paired sediment chemistry data does not show contaminant concentrations at levelsthat can explain the observed toxicity. Further study is needed to identify the causes of toxicity in sediments from this region.In addition, while the use of standardized testing can be a valuable tool for identifying relative toxicity, it is suggested thatfurther studies are needed to quantify the impact of sediment contaminants on resident biota.)

Specific Science Recommendationsa) Conduct investigations to determine the cause for observed toxicity in sediments from southern region of

the bay. These studies should include paired chemistry and toxicity analysis.

b) Conduct studies to quantify the impact of sediment toxicity on resident biota.

Management Related Recommendations5) Develop a routine schedule of review and publishing scientific data for Biscayne Bay.

(Justification: While there are many unanswered science questions for Biscayne Bay, various entities with ongoing monitor-ing programs are generating useful data. It is suggested that efforts be made to develop a program of regular evaluation,summarization, and publishing of results from these programs. In addition, it is recommended that standard analysis methodswith lowest available detection limits be used to more accurately characterize contaminant levels in the bay.)

6) Continue and expand efforts to reduce contaminant loading to the Bay.

(Justification: Studies have identified the presence of contaminants in canal and bay sediments. Monitoring programs haveidentified exceedances of surface water and groundwater quality standards in the Bay and its watershed. Efforts to reducesources of contaminants and minimize inputs to the bay should continue. These efforts should also be expanded to addresscontinued pressures from future growth and development. This includes continuing efforts to reduce contaminant loadingfrom surface water runoff, reducing contamination of groundwater from landfill leachate, and reducing nutrient loading tothe bay.)

GEOLOGY, SEDIMENTOLOGY, CLIMATE, AND SEA LEVEL109

GEOLOGY, SEDIMENTOLOGY, CLIMATE, AND SEA LEVEL

Chair:

Harold R. Wanless

Author:

Harold R. Wanless

Contributors:

Eugene A. Shinn and Lenore P. Tedesco


Recommendations1. Better Document The 3-Dimensional Limestone Control On Groundwater/ Surface Water Flow And On

Resulting Benthic Community Distribution And Bay Circulation.

Justification: Although the surficial limestone is highly porous and permeable, the actual lateral and vertical flow may bestrongly confined and directed by inhomogenieties. These inhomogenieties strongly define the resulting lateral and verticalmovement of groundwater and the interaction of surface water and groundwater interaction. This is, however poorlydocumented.

Specific Science Recommendationsa. Document the 3-dimensional permeability patterns and groundwater flow of the surficial aquifer beneath

the mainland marginal to Biscayne Bay. Determine the source of waters entering the Bay from artesiansprings, the exchange between surficial water and shallow groundwater, and the influence of canal cuts in3-dimensional flow patterns.

Justification: The upper portion of the limestone is commonly considered unconfined and homogeneous. Asexplained in the text, this is incorrect, and the inhomogenieties greatly affect the 3-dimensional movement ofgroundwater.

b. Document the amount of inflow and outflow of freshwater and salt water and freshwater into and out ofthe substrate in areas of exposed limestone in Biscayne Bay. Determine the relative importance of generalrock porosity versus solution pipe porosity providing this flow.

Justification: The role of artesian freshwater springs in delivering water to Biscayne Bay is significant but undocu-mented. Not only is it important to know how much is entering the Bay through various sources, but also, in thecase of springs, where is the water coming from and are any of the sources contaminated.

c. Define the nutrient/pollutant loads being provided by canals, surficial sheet flow and groundwater flowinto Biscayne Bay.

Justification: This must be resolved to provide a background to reducing contaminant and toxicant inputs.

d. Assess the effect of the historical 0.7' rise in sea level on surface water/groundwater flow and salineintrusion. Assess the effect of a further 1.0' and 2.0' rise in sea level on the surface water/groundwaterhydrology of western Biscayne Bay and the adjacent mainland.

Justification: With sea level rise the freshwater head has lessens and the balance of surface and groundwatercontribution changes. In a system as low in elevation as southeast Florida, the role of changing sea level must beincorporated into present and future hydrologic models.

2. Increase Water Clarity, Thus Improving Benthic Community Distribution

The following measures should increase water clarity in the area north of Rickenbacker Causeway so that sea grass andhard bottom communities can increase their depth range and begin to move into the remaining artificially deepeneddredged bottoms.


Specific Science-generated Management and Action Recommendationsa. Recovering Northern Biscayne Bay.

A report on sources and circulation of turbidity in Biscayne Bay (Wanless, et al, 1983) recommended aseries of steps to ameliorate the urbanization-generated deterioration of water clarity, increase in turbidity,and loss of important benthic communities. These recommendations (updated) are as follows:

• Re-establish viable mangrove communities along the margin as much of the natural and artificialshorelines of northern Biscayne Bay as possible, both public and private frontages. These shouldbe of sufficient width to permit areas for trapping and binding of introduced sediment.

Justification: The coastal mangrove community is important in removing turbidity from tidal waters,baffling wave energy, stabilizing the substrate, and providing habitat for juvenile fish species and species ofcritical concern.

• Eliminate all unbulkheaded shorelines of raw loose sediment fill. These shorelines should beconverted to mangrove, clean beach sand or riprap.

Justification: Unbulkheaded fill shorelines are prime sources of long-term persistent fine particulatesediment release and significantly contribute to the elevated turbidity levels of central and northernBiscayne Bay..

• All vertical concrete sea wall shorelines should be fronted by either riprap or a mangrove commu-nity band.

Justification: Shorelines of natural limestone boulders (rip rap) or mangrove will (a) adsorb rather thanreflect incoming wave energy and (b) host a water-clarifying benthic or intertidal community. Verticalseawalls increase day-to-day wave energy in northern Biscayne Bay by reflecting boat wakes. As a result,the shallow benthic communities are stressed and resuspension if fine sediment is increased.

• All artificially deepened dredged areas that are not necessary for boat traffic should be modified topromote a water-clarifying benthic community by, shallowing the bottom with fill to a depth ofless than six feet and planting seagrasses, or using clean construction debris to create artificialhardbottom community reefs.

Justification: Shallowing deep dredged bottoms will permit re-establishment of substrate-stabilizingcommunities, increase Bay productivity and reduce soft bare bottom areas that are responsible for much ofthe resuspended turbidity in northern Biscayne Bay.

•. To prevent the migration of flocculent bottom material (ooze) to sites of resuspension, allartificially deepened dredged areas should be bounded by berms six feet or less in depth. Bermsshould be planted with seagrasses for stabilization.

Justification: The flocculent surface of the deeper bare bottom areas in northern Biscayne Bay commonlydeepen and constrict at gaps between causeway islands. As a result, the tidal currents focused at thesenecks constantly resuspend bottom flocculent matter that migrates towards the deeper necks. Shallowunderwater berms would isolate off deeper dredged areas away from the channel necks.

• The introduction of turbidity and nutrients through natural and artificial canals and channelsshould be monitored, and, if significant, flow modified or berms created to limit these sources.

Justification: Canals commonly receive both fine sediment deposition from Biscayne Bay. Pollutants andtoxicants from freshwater runoff also enter the canals and commonly adhere to the fine particles. Re-


release of this fine sediment back to the Bay (during flood discharge events) both increases the amount offine sediment and turbidity in the Bay and introduces adsorbed contaminants.

b. Improving and Protecting All of Biscayne Bay. Most important in improving and protecting the waterclarity throughout Biscayne Bay is honestly addressing physical stresses of boat activity. We must treat boattraffic across the shallow benthic communities of Biscayne Bay in the same way that we treat vehiculartraffic on land, controlling speeds, prohibiting digging up of the roadbed, restricting vehicles from drivingon the vegetative communities in our parks and gardens, and limiting the travel of trucks.

Specific Science recommendations• Quantify the impact and short- and long-term stresses to water clarity and benthic communities

caused by boating activity, and monitor the changes in water clarity and benthic communityhealth as modifications to permitted boating activity are made.

Justification: With increased use of medium to large boats in Biscayne Bay, bottom resuspension, bottomscour and damage to benthic communities can be expected. Commercial and recreational use of the Bay’swaters should not degrade the water or the benthic communities of the Bay.

Specific Science-generated Management and Action Recommendations• Eliminate use of large thrust commercial boats, tugs, and barges from southern Biscayne Bay. The

Tug/barge delivering diesel fuel to Turkey Point is a blatant example.

Justification: Commercial and recreational use of the Bay’s waters should not degrade the water or thebenthic communities of the Bay.

• Limit all boats with large thrust and wake to idle speed if in other than the main east-westshipping channels to and from the Bay.

Justification: This will encourage the larger and more powerful boats to travel offshore, the place for whichthey were designed.

• Better mark channels through the Safety Valve, Featherbed Bank and other shallow areas.

Justification: This will reduce the damage to sea grasses caused by prop scour and excavation.

• Have map boards at marinas with directions, notification of penalties for bay bottom damage andeducation on value of benthic communities.

Justification: Education and guidance is fundamental to improved boating practices.

• Have brochures provided with boat tag renewals, with marine officer citations, at all put ins, andat marine stores that provide directions, notification of penalties for bay bottom damage andeducation on value of benthic communities.


3. Predict Future Evolution Of Biscayne Bay In Response To Hurricanes, And Sea Level Rise And IncorporateThis In To Management, Legislation And Policy Decisions

It is imperative that the high probability for significant future sea level rise be addressed head on. A recent discussion inScience demonstrates the cost, waste and increased risk that occurs if the reality of future sea level rise is not incorporated in


to planning and design for the future of low-lying coastal cities (Ammerman and McClennen, 2000). The following areconsidered high priority recommendation as they provide the foundation for modeling and design of the Biscayne Bay of thefuture.


a. Assess the quantitative effect of the past 70 years of increased rate of relative sea level rise on the environ-ments and waters in and marginal to Biscayne Bay.

Justification: The 0.7-foot rise in sea level over the past 70 years is about 7 times faster than the rate over the past2,000 years. As a result there have already bee nfundamental changes in the stability of the coastlines, wetlands,mudbanks, circulation, and hydrology of Biscayne Bay.

b. Using knowledge of the response of coastal and shallow marine environments to differing rates of relativesea level rise (form geologic studies of south Florida), assess how the coastal and shallow marine environ-ments in various settings of Biscayne Bay will respond over the next 100 years to a further sea level rise of1 and 2 feet.

• Create a map and dynamic model of how the marine, coastal and upland environments in andmarginal to Biscayne Bay will look in 50 and 100 years with a 1 and a 2 foot rise in relative sealevel.






Justification: The above research/modeling exercise will provide a visual model of future changes in the configura-tion of the substrate and the Bay margins, circulation, salinity, distribution of habitats, and foci of human stressover the next century. This will provide the foundation for all long-term management, legislative and policystrategies.

Specific Science-generated Management and Action Recommendationsc. Incorporate the reality of the historical rapid rise in sea level and the high probability of further future

increases in the rate of sea level rise into every aspect of planning for the future of Biscayne Bay andMiami-Dade County.

Justification: Without using the produced knowledge of the future of Biscayne Bay, management and policydecisions will be meaningless and likely environmentally and economically harmful to the Bay and the people ofsouth Florida.


SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND INFORMATION, STATUS OFKNOWLEDGE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Scope Of TopicsA. Limestone substrate influence as it relates to biscayne bay and the adjacent upland.

B. Sediment bodies and sedimentary environments in and marginal to biscayne bay: Their origin, dynamic evolution,influence on benthic communities, influence on water quality, effects of human modifications, and stability in atime of rising sea level.

C. Sources and circulation of turbidity in biscayne bay, including evaluation of success of improvements made in thepast 20 years.

D. Historical and projected future sea level rise as it influences the stability and evolution of the configuration ofbiscayne bay and its sediment bodies, circulation, environments, communities, dispersal of nutrients, turbidity andcontaminants, salinity patterns, and freshwater inflow. And;

Role of hurricanes and other catastrophic events in the dynamics of the biscayne bay system and in initiatingevolution of sedimentary environments in and marginal to biscayne bay.

E. Documentation of historical modifications and improvements.

Throughout we use the HISTORICAL SEDIMENT RECORD as a proxy for historical record of benthic communities,water quality, and toxin/pollutant dispersal and the HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH RECORD as a means ofdelineating historical changes in benthic communities, patterns of human modification and stress to the Biscayne Baysystem, and patterns of turbidity.

A. Limestone Control On Groundwater Flow, Benthic Community DistributionAnd CirculationSouth Florida is not the Netherlands or New Orleans. Our Pleistocene limestone substrate is highly porous and permeable.Changing upland water levels in one area will quickly affect adjacent areas. Withdrawal of water from one area will quicklyaffect adjacent areas. Although the limestone beneath and adjacent to Biscayne Bay is highly porous and permeable, thereare within it significant and complicated barriers to flow. These barriers are of three types: exposure calcretes, dense muddylimestone units, and karst solution cavities and pipes.

Calcretes or limestone soil crusts are sub-horizontal thin zones of low permeability limestone formed during times ofemergence in the Pleistocene. Rainwater induced dissolution and reprecipitation of calcium carbonate and soil processescreates this zone at the top of more permeable marine limestone sequences. There are 4-5 distinct calcretes in the upper 40-80 feet of Pleistocene limestone in southeast Florida. These calcretes form distinct surfaces that inhibit vertical groundwaterflow and segment the horizontal flow into discrete zones. The calcrete surfaces are not perfect aquicludes (permeabilityboundaries) as they are eroded in places and cut by vertical solution cavities.


A second type of horizontal barrier to groundwater flow is a layer of low permeability limestone. Marine and freshwatercarbonate muds, on cementation become low permeability surfaces. If not disrupted by coarser burrow fills or unfilled root orburrow traces, these become restrictions to vertical flow. Unlike calcrete surfaces, these carbonate mud layers are laterallydiscontinuous ad they represent an ancient environment with lateral boundaries.

The third type of barrier or constriction to groundwater flow is the interconnected maze of solution cavities in thelimestone. During glacial periods of lowered sea level, rainwater dissolved a network of solution pipes, cavities and caves intothe limestone. Some of the cavities from one low stand may be connected to those of previous ones. Dissolution andreprecipitation on the margins of these cavities commonly makes them high permeability networks with very low permeabil-ity margins.

Thus, though the limestone is highly porous and permeable, the actual lateral and vertical flow may be strongly con-fined and directed. This is best illustrated by the artesian freshwater springs that historically flowed up through limestonecavities out in Biscayne Bay (Kohout). These springs occurred because the above described permeability barriers restrictedand directed the flow of freshwater groundwater from the mainland out under Biscayne Bay where it emerged at specificpoints defined by solution pipe/cavity networks cut through the surficial calcrete aquicludes.

These springs were sufficiently dependable that they had platform structures around them and were used by passingships to resupply fresh water. The last of these perennial artesian springs in Biscayne Bay was located just offshore theDeering Estate and had weak flow into the mid-1960s. Springs further offshore are reactivated in times of high rainfall.Springs well off the mainland shore were active in 1993 and 1994 in response to elevated freshwater levels form heavyrainfall (Wanless and Tedesco personal observation). Springs were easily visible form a distance on calm days by distinctwater patches. At and adjacent to the spring the mixing of fresh and saline water produced the characteristic blurry water, orschleren. The benthic community at the spring site was invariably different than that of the surrounding bottom. One ofthese springs sampled on 11/23/94 was located southeast of 168th Street Canal about 250 meters offshore (N25º 35.632' andW80º18.275'). At the Spring water was nearly fresh form top to bottom. The bottom directly adjacent to the spring had noseagrass cover, but the bottom was covered with a bloom of benthic foraminifera. Water inshore and to the north wasdistinctly saltier. Two water samples were collected from the spring and supplied to Biscayne National Park (L.P. Tedesco).

Kohout (1966 and 1967) and Kohout and Kolipinski (1967) documented that discharge from offshore freshwater springsstrongly influenced the salinity patterns of western Biscayne Bay.

Three things have happened in the past 100 years that have changed the nature of freshwater discharge into BiscayneBay. First, the natural freshwater levels on the adjacent mainland have dramatically lowered reducing the freshwater head.Second, canals were cut from the Bay into the mainland. This further lowered freshwater levels and caused extensivesaltwater intrusion into the near coast surface and groundwater. Many of these have since been blocked to prevent saltwaterintrusion. How the canal cuts have broken through permeability barriers, however, is not documented. Third, there has beena relative rise in sea level or 0.7 feet since 1930. This had the effect of forcing the sea onto and into the land, furtherreducing the freshwater head.

As evidenced by the conclusions of the recent Draft SEIS for the proposed development of the former Homestead AirForce Base, a few unsupported assumptions on the nature of the limestone (homogeneous and low permeability) and the roleof canals (will handle most of the rainwater removal) can easily be used to produce very misguided conclusions as to ground-water flow into Biscayne Bay. That report stated that groundwater introduced at the Homestead base would take 50-100years to reach Biscayne Bay. On the other hand, the specific influence of macroporosity, 3-dimensional inhomogeneities inpermeability, and the role of solution conduits are insufficiently defined so as to be able to use to provide quantifiable modelsof specific flow. Similarly, it is presently speculative how proposed re-establishment of surficial sheet flow across coastalwetlands into portions of Biscayne Bay will affect subjacent groundwater flow. Bryne (1999) has addressed the role ofnutrient loading in Biscayne Bay as the result of groundwater introduction.


Meeder et al (1999b and 2000) have documented that the flow in natural tidal/discharge channels into the mainlandwetlands have dramatically changed historically as the channels have become clogged with peat and roots of the invadingmangrove communities. How this change in surficial drainage landscape has affected both surface and groundwater hydrol-ogy is the focus of their ongoing research. Meeder et al. (1999a) have addressed the flux from tidal creeks into southernBiscayne Bay, and and Ross et al (1999) have evaluated the possibilities of rediversion of canal flow to sheet flow intosouthern Biscayne Bay

Recommendations for Groundwater Movement

• Document the 3-dimensional permeability patterns and groundwater flow of the surficial aquifer beneath themainland marginal to Biscayne Bay. Determine the source of waters entering the Bay from artesian springs, theexchange between surficial water and shallow groundwater, and the influence of canal cuts in 3-dimensional flowpatterns.

Justification: The upper portion of the limestone is commonly considered unconfined and homogeneous. As explained in thetext, this is incorrect, and the inhomogenieties greatly affect the 3-dimensional movement of groundwater.

• Document the amount of inflow and outflow of freshwater and salt water and freshwater into and out of thesubstrate in areas of exposed limestone in Biscayne Bay. Determine the relative importance of general rock porosityversus solution pipe porosity providing this flow.

Justification: The role of artesian freshwater springs in delivering water to Biscayne Bay is significant but undocu-mented. Not only is it important to know how much is entering the Bay through various sources, but also, in thecase of springs, where is the water coming from and are any of the sources contaminated.

• Define the nutrient/pollutant loads being provided by canals, surficial sheet flow and groundwater flow intoBiscayne Bay.

Justification: This must be resolved to provide a background to reducing contaminant and toxicant inputs.

• Assess the effect of the historical 0.7' rise in sea level on surface water/groundwater flow and saline intrusion. Assessthe effect of a further 1.0' and 2.0' rise in sea level on the surface water/groundwater hydrology of western BiscayneBay and the adjacent mainland.

Justification: With sea level rise the freshwater head has lessens and the balance of surface and groundwatercontribution changes. In a system as low in elevation as southeast Florida, the role of changing sea level must beincorporated into present and future hydrologic models.

B. Origin, Dynamics, And Evolution Of The Sediment Bodies And BottomEnvironments In And Marginal To Biscayne Bay

The sediment bodies in and marginal to Biscayne Bay are dynamics features that actively respond both gradually andcatastrophically to changing conditions. The origin and dynamics of the various sediment bodies have been describedpreviously (Aigner, 1985; Harlem, 1979; Tedesco and Wanless, 1995; Wanless, 1969, 1976a, 1976b; Wanless et al., 1989,1995; Warzeski, 1975). The following is a brief summary focusing on how these environments have evolved and changedhistorically in response toe natural and human modifications. This is necessary background for understanding all aspects ofBiscayne Bay’s dynamics and in order to assess how the Bay will respond to future human modification and the projectedfurther increase in the rate of relative sea level rise.


Coral Limestone RidgeA linear north-south trending ridge of Pleistocene coral limestone defines the seaward, eastern, margin of Biscayne Bay. Tothe south, this ridge is largely emergent forming the limestone islands of Sands Key, Elliott Key, Old Rhoades Key and KeyLargo. To the north, it gradually submerges forming the Ragged Keys and Soldier Key but remains as a submerged ridge tothe north beneath the Safety Valve mud bar belt, just seaward of Key Biscayne, Virginia Key and Fisher Island, and beneathMiami Beach. This now submerged portion of this ridge defined the position of the Safety Valve mud bar belt and the sandybarrier islands to the north as they formed over the past 5,000 years of rising sea level.

Beginning about 3,000 years ago, tidal and storm currents passing through newly inundated gaps in the ridge north ofElliott Key created the Featherbed Banks, carbonate sand and mud banks that extend well out across Biscayne Bay anddivide central and southern Biscayne Bay.

About 3,500 years ago, rising sea level inundated the channeled low area of the ridge at Caesar’s Creek and stormsprogressively opened a gap in the bay-side mangrove forest creating effective tidal exchange through the Ceasar’s Creek.This opening dramatically altered the circulation of central and southern Biscayne Bay. Caesar’s Creek became a focus ofdischarge from Biscayne Bay of sediment resuspended by winter storms and hurricanes. Caesar’s Creek Bank is the result ofthis transport of sediment (Warzeski, 1975). Although capped by vibrant seagrass and coral-algal fringe communities, thebank was largely built of storm sediment swept form Biscayne Bay.

Elliott Key contains several topographically low gaps that are choked with mangroves. With a continued rise in sea levelover the next century, storms will open these gaps further altering the circulation of southern Biscayne Bay.

Sandy Barrier IslandsThe sandy barrier islands bordering northern and central Biscayne Bay are the end of a nearly continuous line of barrierislands along the Atlantic coastline of the United States. Key Biscayne is the most southerly. Beyond a subtidal ridge of sandextends southeasterly and fades out east of Soldier Key. These barrier islands are Miami Beach, Virginia Key and KeyBiscayne are composed of about 25% quartz sand, derived from transport from the north, and 75% carbonate skeletal sand,more locally derived (Wanless, 1969, 1976).

Natural inlets are/were Baca Ratones, Norris Cut and Bear Cut. Bear Cut, separating Virginia Key form KeyBiscayne, is present on the earliest 16th century maps. Boca Ratones formed in 1720 near the site of the Indian CreekCountry Club on Miami Beach. This inlet was open until 1820. Southerly longshore drift offset the seaward mouth over thattime, and when it closed the mouth was near 20th Street (Chardon, 1976 and 1978). Between 1820 and 1835 Bear Cutbecame the only inlet through the barrier islands, and northern Biscayne Bay had essentially no exchange with offshorewaters. A hurricane in 1835 opened Norris Cut separating Virginia Key from Miami Beach. Norris cut remained a narrowshallow inlet until human modification of the area to the north in 1905.

Two artificial inlets and major dredging of two natural inlets have dramatically modified the nature of the dynamics ofthe barrier island beaches and of the exchange of Biscayne Bay with offshore waters. In 1905, Government Cut (the MiamiShipping Channel) was cut across the narrow southern portion of Miami Beach. Fill from this dredging was placed behindthe separated beach segment to the south creating Fisher Island. As longshore drift of beach sand repeatedly shallowed theinlet and blocked shipping access, rock jetties were extended seaward from the north and south margins of Government Cutchannel. For over 85 years, they have effectively blocked the net southward transport of beach sand to the islands to thesouth. As a result the natural beach of Fisher Island quickly eroded exposing the coral limestone rock of the dredging at theshoreline, Norris Cut has widened and deepened. The ocean shoreline of Virginia Key has persistently rapidly eroded inspite of renourishment projects in 1969 and 1974, and sand has been completely stripped from the once sandy littoralplatform seaward of Fisher Island and Virginia Key. This block to southward transport is now affecting Key Biscayne’sshoreline. A resurvey of the area seaward of Virginia Key and Fisher Island by Oleck in 1998 documents sand loss of averag-


ing 80,000 cubic years per year has occurred in that area since construction of Government Cut. Government Cut has beenprogressively deepened to meet shipping needs and is now over 50 feet in depth.

Baker’s Haulover Inlet was constructed in 1925, in part as an effort to increase circulation to relieve ‘the stench of rawsewage in the Bay’. This inlet is shallower than Government Cut and has groins that do not completely block the littoraltransport of sand. Nevertheless, large volumes of beach sand are swept into the northern end of Biscayne Bay or are pushedseaward by ebbing tides and storm currents. The result has been serious erosion of the coastline to the south and repeatedrenourishment efforts.

In conjunction with deriving fill for development of Virginia Key and Key Biscayne, two existing inlet channels weredredged in the early 1950s, significantly modifying the dynamics of littoral transport. Dredged material from the northwestside of Bear Cut was used in preparation for development of southern Virginia Key. This dredging deepened the baywardportion of the cut, cut away a portion of the sandy flood tidal delta, and widened the channel connection inot Biscayne Bay.At the south end of Key Biscayne, dredging material to fill the southern third of the island (now Cape Florida Park) wasderived from safety Valve area to the southwest. Prior to dredging, the southern ocean beach of Key Biscayne wrappedaround to the bay side. Adjacent to the bay side beach was a beach narrow shallow channel and the shallow intertidal sandand mud flats of the Safety Valve beyond. The dredging created a deep wide channel trough from the south tip of KeyBiscayne along the entire southwestern margin of Key Biscayne and a vertical sea wall at the shoreline. In both cases, areasthat had been a part of the dynamic give and take of sand in the littoral systems became sediment sinks. Beach sand movingalong the shore system to these dredged holes became lost into them. These dredging projects created new sites of sand lossand shore erosion in an already stressed shore system.

Hurricanes of the past century have caused dramatic steps of erosion on the barrier island coastline. The barrier islandsbordering Biscayne Bay are low, with out the high dune ridges found elsewhere, and onshore storm surges sweep sand ontoand across the islands creating a permanent loss of sand from the ocean-side littoral system. The Hurricane of 1926, forexample, caused 200 feet of erosion in a portion of central Key Biscayne. Subsequent storms have resulted 25-60 feet erosionsteps. Nearly all the beaches in Miami-Dade County have been renourished in an effort to offset erosion or overzealouscoastal construction (Miami Beach). A variety of sand sources have been used. Key Biscayne has used sand from the littoralsand platform seaward (1969) and to the south (1985) of the island. Virginia Key has used sand form Key Biscayne (1969)and quartz sand form a fossil beach encountered in deepening Government Cut (1974). Fisher Island has used carbonateoolitic and from the Bahamas (~1991). Miami Beach and north has used carbonate sand found in troughs in the limestoneshelf several miles seaward of the shore (1980) and subsequent. The sand mantling the present beaches is very different fromthat found naturally. A problem with beach renourishment in general and with several Miami-Dade County projects inparticular is the increase in nearshore turbidity following renourishment. Marine sand used in renourishment, invariablyhave significant amounts of fine sediment and commonly have skeletal grains that are easily abraded. The renourished beachthus becomes a source of persistent long term release of fine suspended particulates, degrading the nearshore water quality.The massive Miami Beach renourishment of the 1980s has had the most degrading effect of the projects in the County.

Marginal Carbonate Mud and Sand BanksThe Safety Valve mud bar belt, formed on and behind the submerged limestone ridge, defines the eastern margin of centralBiscayne Bay. The banks and channel complex is built in response to tidal and storm waters flowing across the banks. Thecarbonate sand and mud sediment comprising the bank is derived both from storm transport onto the banks and intenselocal production (itself reworked and redistributed by storms; Aigner, 1985; Tedesco and Wanless, 1995; Wanless et al.,1995). In the Ragged Keys area of partly emergent limestone, the banks are irregular in form separated by irregular channelpatterns. As the limestone ridge submerges to the north, the bank complex has evolved to a series of broad shallow banksseparated by well-defined channels trending perpendicularly across from the Bay to ocean. Relics of earlier phases of banksgrowth are visible imbedded in the northern Safety Valve (Wanless, 1969, 1976; Harlem, 1979). As the mud bank form hasevolved, channels have changed through abandonment, filling and recutting — not migration (ibid.). The well-defined


channels are mostly cut to the limestone rock across their axis. Within the banks are relict abandoned channels in variousstates of infill.

The banks and channel flanks are presently well covered by seagrass and Halimeda algal mounds. The seaward flankshave a living coral-algal fringe community except in the northern portion where it has largely died off in the past 40 years.Rock floored channels and a hardbottom community of sponges, soft corals and corals. Sediment floored channels haveseagrass cover unless subjected to full tidal scour.

Historical hurricanes in the 1920s and 1960s severely set back the benthic community cover to the safety Valve mudbanks. As pointed out by Harlem (1979), smaller hurricane events can be as devastating or more devastating to seagrasscover than large events. The internal stratigraphy of the banks documents the dominating role of storm events in buildingthe Safety Valve banks and in expanding them bayward and seaward (Aigner, 1985; Tedesco and Wanless, 1995; Wanless etal., 1995; Warzeski, 1976).

Increasing boat traffic has caused moderate to severe damage to the seagrass cover on the bank tops through prop scourof boats venturing into too shallow water and prop-wash excavation of stuck boats. In addition boat wake traffic throughestablished channels has destabilized channel flanks and increased turbidity through persistent erosion of the margins.

Intrabay Carbonate Mud and Sand BanksFeatherbed Banks. The Featherbed Banks are two east-west trending banks of carbonate sand and mud that effectivelydivide central from southern Biscayne Bay. North and south Featherbed Bank each originated in response to pairs of definednatural tidal channels through the emergent limestone ridge at the eastern boundary of the Bay (Wanless, —). Sedimentladen waters sweeping into the Bay through these channels during winter storm and hurricane events built these banks.South Featherbed Bank began forming about 2,500 years ago as the seaward channels between Boca Chita Key and SandsKey opened up to tidal and storm exchange (Wanless, 1991; Wanless et al., 1995). North Featherbed Bank formed some-what earlier in response to opening of channel passes at the north end of the present Ragged Keys. With rising sea level, thelimestone ridge in the northern Ragged Keys area became increasingly submerged and water flow was no longer restricted tothe channels. North Featherbed Bank is no longer actively forming, but rather is being remolded by storm currents withinthe Bay.

A coral-algal fringe community with abundant soft corals and molluscs caps the narrow eastern portion of southFeatherbed Bank. To the west, seagrass dominates the broader banks flanks and top. Bare patches in the broad western bankinterior are areas that have not yet recovered from historical hurricane setback. The internal stratigraphy records growth ofthese south Featherbed Bank by pulses of rapid deposition of mud on a barren bottom. This growth is similar to that docu-mented for the mud banks in central Florida Bay (Wanless and Tagett, 1989; Wanless et al., 1995).

The Featherbed banks are severely damaged by prop ruts and scour excavations from boats. In some portions, this ishaving a significant destabilizing influence on the bank itself. A channel of the Intracoastal Waterway and several othermarked channels cut the Featherbed Banks. Boat wakes are causing visible erosion and resuspension on the channel andbank flanks.

Black Ledge and Pelican Bank are isolated banks of carbonate mud and quartz sand that sit atop submerged NE-SWtrending limestone bathymetric highs. They are remnants of a mangrove and beach shoreline that became isolated withrising sea level and overall retreat of the mainland coast. Seagrass communities cover the banks, but that on the quartz sandportion of Black Ledge can be severely set back by hurricanes.

Bank North of Julia Tuttle Causeway. An extremely shallow bank of sand and mud extended across northern BiscayneBay between what is not Julia Tuttle Causeway and 79th Street Causeway. To permit even small boat traffic into northern-most Biscayne Bay, a channel was cut in the late 1890s (Harlem, 1979). This was followed by another channel to serve theIntracoastal Waterway, and dredging along the eastern and western margin of the Bay so as to fill the mangrove margins for


development. Dredged troughs also now mark the north and south margins of this bank, created to obtain fill for thebounding causeways. Although surrounded by turbid waters of these deeper dredged troughs and channels, the lush seagrasscover of the surviving bank is a highly effective filter to waters moving onto the bank. In a turbidity study in the early 1980s,the interior of this bank had the clearest water in Biscayne Bay (Wanless et al., 1983).

Core borings show that there was sea grass cover on the southern portion of this bank through much of its formation,but not to the north. The improved circulation through northern Biscayne Bay as a result of opening baker’s Haulover inletin 1925, has greatly improved the opportunity of sea grass community cover across the entire bank.

Open Bay InteriorMuch of central and southern Biscayne Bay is underlain by shallow Pleistocene limestone. This limestone surface slopesgently eastward to a deep axis about 3/4 of the way across the Bay and then rises more sharply to the coral limestone ridge atthe eastern margin. The limestone bottom deepens to he north, and north of Coconut Grove, the limestone beneath thewestern portion of the Bay also deepens. In the landward portion of central Biscayne Bay, intense dissolution of depositedcarbonate mud occurs in response to the organic-rich sediment and poorly buffered pore waters (Wanless, 1991).

The nature of the community structure is covered in Habitats of Critical Concern.

Hardbottom of Southern and West-Central Biscayne Bay. In general, sediment has not accumulated over this lime-stone substrate in areas where the limestone is less than 3 meters in depth. Thus, the shallow southern Bay and the westernportion of central Bay is an exposed rocky bottom with only a veneer of sediment and a hardbottom benthic community.These hardbottom communities are sites of intense production of sediment by sponges and soft corals (spicules), calcareousalgae (carbonate mud), foraminifera (calcareous tests), and bioerosion of the limestone and macroskeletal remains (fine sandand silt fragments). Moat of the resulting sediment is fine and easily resuspended and transported from the areas by winterstorms and hurricanes.

Seagrass, tending to form persistent benthic communities only in areas with at least 15 centimeters of sediment cover,forms only spotty cover over much of southern and west-central Biscayne Bay.

Soft Bottom. In open Bay areas with greater than 15 cm of sediment cover, the bottom tends to be covered with apersistent seagrass community. This occurs in a narrow north-south strip on the deep axis of southern Biscayne Bay, acrossthe middle and eastern portions of central Biscayne Bay and in areas that have not been deepened by dredging to the north.

The nature of the sediment comprising the soft bottom of the open bay varies considerably. In the northern Bay, theeastern half is quartz-carbonate sand similar to that making up the barrier islands to the East. To the west this yields toorganic-rich carbonate muds. In central Biscayne Bay, the carbonate sand and mud dominate the eastern and middleportion. To the west (towards Vizcaya, Coconut Grove and Matheson Hammock) carbonate mud diminishes and organic-rich quartz sand dominates. To the south carbonate sediments predominate throughout.

Although winter storms and especially hurricanes redistribute fine sediment throughout the Bay, the mineralogy of thefine sediment deposit. This is best illustrated in an east-west trasnect across the Bay form the northern Safety Valve toCoconut Grove. In the less than 62 micron fraction, the magnesium calcite and aragonite dominate the carbonate sedimentof the Safety Valve and central portion of the Bay, and low-magnesium calcite is a minor component. To the west, theseabundance of carbonate mud diminishes, and the relative abundance of the carbonate components rapidly invert. Within amile of the mainland shoreline only low-magnesium calcite is present in the sediment. This distribution is a product ofintense dissolution of the less stable carbonate components in the less buffered pore water s of the quartz and organic-richsediment towards the mainland.

Intense dissolution and remobilization of mineral components is important not only to the general sediment composi-tion. Adsorbed metals and pollutants also become involved in remobilization and redistribution.


The deepest natural part of Biscayne bay is the middle of the Bay south of Rickenbacker Causeway. Here depths reach5-6 meters. There is historical evidence that seagrasses once grew at these depths, but increased turbidity levels has con-verted these deeper areas to barren soft bottoms. Aerial photographs from the 1940s onward commonly also show linearnorth-south bare bottom areas to the south of this deepest area. It is likely that these are the result of bottom trawlingactivity. Waves and currents from winter storms easily resuspend this deeper bottom area and the high turbidity levels persistwell after events.

Mangrove Wetland Shorelines

Mangrove swamp shorelines backed by freshwater marshes bordered Biscayne Bay during much of the 6,000 years of itsformation. Through most of that time, the mangrove coastline has progressively migrated landward in response to rising sealevel. This erosive landward migration continued in most of the area during the last 3,000 years of very gradually rising sealevel, a time during which the wetland complex on the southwest Florida Coast was advancing seaward by leaps and bounds.Only on the east and south margins of Card Sound and Barnes Sound has the mangrove margin held or advanced over thepast 3,000 years Wanless (1991) and Wanless et al (1994).

Much of the mainland shore of Biscayne Bay had a narrow margin of mangrove swamp behind which was a freshwatermarsh. Mangroves have progressively spread landward over the past 70 years, as the freshwater head was reduced and directflow from the Everglades cut off and in response to the dramatic rise in sea level (Meeder et al., 2000; Teas et al, 1976 and1978; Wanless, 1976 and 1991). The islands of the Arsenicker Keys tend to be erosional on the north and east margins, inresponse to repetitive winter storm wave attack (George Berbarian, Mimeo; see also Wanless and Tagett, 1989 for similarprocess affecting islands in Florida Bay).

Major hurricanes have caused distinct erosional steps in the mangrove coastline, and there is concern that, in a time ofrapidly rising sea level, the rapid subsidence of the decaying root peat following major hurricanes may put recovery of majorportions of the mangrove coast in peril over the next century when recovery is further stressed by continued rapidly risingsea level.

As serious, intertidal mangrove wetlands need to be able to migrate up slope in response to rising sea level. In developedareas the red mangrove fringe is commonly preserved (by law) but the higher intertidal Black and white mangrove zone hasbeen bulkheaded and filled. This leaves nowhere for migration to occur.

Recovery from major hurricane damage is strongly dependent on flushing of the waters of the red mangrove swamp.Decay products of the mangrove peat further kill mangroves and inhibit regrowth and recovery if not actively flushed bytidal waters.

C. Sources, Circulation And Sinks Of Turbidity In Biscayne BayBiscayne Bay is remembered as a bay of crystal clear waters, a condition that still persists in portions of the southern andnorthern Bay. This clarity occurred because of the intense filtering, trapping and binding activity of the benthic communi-ties living within the Bay, not because of the lack of fine particulate matter. (Unless otherwise noted, the following is takenfrom Wanless et al., 1983).

Unlike most estuarine bays, the fine particulate material in Biscayne is composed of calcium carbonate, opalline silicaand organic material. Calcium carbonate particles are derived from skeletal material of organisms living within or adjacentto the Bay of from the bio-erosion of the limestone surface exposed in south Biscayne Bay. Opalline silica is as skeletalmaterial from organisms, mainly spicules of sponges and tests of diatoms. Organic matter is living and decomposing plant(mangrove and seagrass), algal, and bacterial material.

Clays, formed through the weathering of continental rocks and dominating most estuarine systems are present only in


trace amounts in Biscayne Bay. The Everglades systems sits on limestone, quartz sand and organic matter, and has not sourceof clay minerals to transport. The less than one per cant of clay mineral material found within Biscayne sediments is derivedfrom the Mississippi River discharge and from Saharan dust.

Fine-grained carbonate-siliceous-organic sediment is produced throughout the Biscayne Bay, including in the rockyintertidal and subtidal environments where it is not accumulating. The hard-bottom communities of south Biscayne Bay area major source of fine-grained sediment. This is dispersed by winter storms to other environments.

Fine-grained carbonate-siliceous-organic sediment has accumulated significant sediment bodies within and marginal toBiscayne Bay — the Safety Valve and Featherbed mud banks in central Biscayne Bay; Pelican Bank, Cutter Bank and CardBank in southern Biscayne Bay; the deeper central Bay north of the Featherbed Banks, and the mangrove margins to all ofBiscayne Bay. These large deposits of muddy sediment were stabilized by seagrass and mangrove communities and thuseffectively isolated from being recycled in to the Bay waters.

Historical levels of high levels of water clarity in Biscayne Bay promoted luxuriant benthic communities that activelyfiltered, trapped and bound fine-grained sediment which maintained good water clarity, which … Each benthic environ-ment within the Bay played a similar role. The sponges, soft corals and mollusks of the hard-bottom communities and Bay-margin mangrove fringe filtered particulates from the Bay waters. The epiphytic growth on the seagrasses and the baffle ofthe seagrass blades themselves actively trapped passing fine particulate matter, and the stable root-bound bottom bound thetrapped material and retarded its resuspension even during winter storms. And the seagrass bottoms and mangrove marginsbecame traps into which material transported during storms would settle and be quickly removed from the Bay waters.

This chicken and egg relationship is easily broken by damage to or loss of the benthic or bay-margin community. Thisoccurred in the late 1800s and early 1900s in northern Biscayne Bay as the mangrove margin was smothered by fill forhousing, and the Bay bottom was dramatically deepened as material was dredged for filling the mangrove margins, construct-ing islands within the bay and creating causeways connecting Miami Beach with the mainland. All of northern Biscayne baywas originally bordered by mangrove and freshwater wetlands, and all of the islands and causeways within northern BiscayneBay are the artificial product of this dredge and fill activity. By the mid 1950s, dredge and fill activity had effectivelyobliterated the mangroves communities from Coconut Grove and Key Biscayne north. The extensive complex of dredgedBay bottom essentially formed a moat around the northern Biscayne Bay, with the area between Dodge Island and JuliaTuttle Causeway being nearly entirely deepened and the Bay to the north crisscrossed with deep channels. These dredgedareas are 10-30 feet in depth with 12-15 feet being characteristic.

In addition, the dredge and fill activity left the shore margins as either vertical concrete seawalls which reflected thewave energy of the increasing boat traffic in northern Biscayne Bay or exposed raw will. These unbulkheaded raw fillshorelines and the associated steep raw sediment margins to the adjacent subtidal dredged pits became sources of persistentlong-term release of fine particulates with agitation form winter storms and boat wakes. Harlem (1979) demonstrated theinfluence of boat wakes in Biscayne Bay by demonstrating that the dredged spoil islands adjacent to both the ease and westsides of the Intracoastal Waterway were migrating (eroding) away form the Intracoastal Waterway — on both sides of theWaterway even though they were set well back from the channel.

In addition, the increasing volumes and raw sewage and nutrients introduced into the Bay (until 1952 when this wasessentially eliminated) introduced fine particulates and promoted planktonic blooms that further reduced water clarity.

This suite of modifications eliminated the water clarifying influences of the marginal mangrove community, added avast array of new sites of turbidity (fine suspended particulates) release. The resulting increased turbidity (and decreasedwater clarity) left the newly dredged Bay bottom too deep (with insufficient light) for recolonization and stabilization by seagrass communities. In addition, settling fine particulates form a fluid ooze on the bottom of the interconnected deep dredgedareas. This ooze flows to the deeper areas, which are commonly the narrow tidally turbulent gaps in causeways. At thesepoints, the material is resuspended adding to the increased persistent turbidity levels of northern Biscayne Bay.


Thus, the chicken and egg problem: Seagrasses in clear water can grow in water depths of greater than 30 feet. In post-urbanization turbid northern Biscayne Bay, sea grasses grow to only 6 -7 feet in depth, but much of the northern Bay bottomin now greater than that. To permit seagrass growth in deeper water, water clarity must first increase.

Increased boating activity has increased turbidity (decreased water clarity) throughout Biscayne Bay. There are severalcauses for this. First, boats with large thrust and wakes directly resuspend material from the bottom, the flanks of channelsand the shoreline. Commonly this thrust and wake turbulence also causes erosion to the substrate and benthic community.Second, boats venturing into too shallow water are increasingly cutting prop ruts and, if they become stuck, deep thrustexcavations with thick smothering layers of sediment over the adjacent bottom. These ruts and scours are invariably cut intoseagrass beds, persist for well over a decade, and commonly widen and deepen with subsequent wave and current activityscour. They become sites of long-term turbidity release and widening benthic community destabilization. Third, boat wakescause a significant increase in the ambient wave climate, increasing the level and depth of day to day wave agitation. This awidespread affect but is most apparent in the narrow Bay sector north of 79th Street Causeway where boat waves, amplifiedby marginal vertical sea walls, commonly make this sector choppy even on calm days. Fourth, bottom trawling activity fromboats is suspected to be stressing the bottom seagrass communities and in the deeper area of central Biscayne Bay south ofRickenbacker Causeway, having been the cause for loss of the seagrass sea grass community. Historical aerial photographsshow linear stripes of barren bottom among the seagrass. All of these boating-related stresses are real and significant. Thequantitative effect of a few of these has been attempted (Harlem, 1979). Biscayne National Park has documented that theheightened turbidity levels created by weekend boat activity persists to the following weekend (Curray, personal communi-cation).

Recommendations for Increasing Water Clarity, Thus Improving BenthicCommunity Distribution

1. Recovering Northern Biscayne Bay

A report on sources and circulation of turbidity in Biscayne Bay in 1983 (Wanless, et al) recommended a series ofsteps to ameliorate the urbanization-generated deterioration of water clarity, increase in turbidity, and loss ofimportant benthic communities. These recommendations (updated) are as follows:

a. Re-establish viable mangrove communities along the margin as much of the natural and artificial shore-lines of northern Biscayne Bay as possible, both public and private frontages. These should be of sufficientwidth to permit areas for trapping and binding of introduced sediment.

Justification: The coastal mangrove community is important in removing turbidity from tidal waters, baffling waveenergy, stabilizing the substrate, and providing habitat for juvenile fish species and species of critical concern.

b. Eliminate all unbulkheaded shorelines of raw loose sediment fill. These shorelines should be converted tomangrove, clean beach sand or riprap.

Justification: Unbulkheaded fill shorelines are prime sources of long-term persistent fine particulate sediment releaseand significantly contribute to the elevated turbidity levels of central and northern Biscayne Bay..

c. All vertical concrete sea wall shorelines should be fronted by either riprap or a mangrove communityband.

Justification: Shorelines of natural limestone boulders (rip rap) or mangrove will (a) adsorb rather than reflectincoming wave energy and (b) host a water-clarifying benthic or intertidal community. Vertical seawalls increaseday-to-day wave energy in northern Biscayne Bay by reflecting boat wakes. As a result, the shallow benthiccommunities are stressed and resuspension if fine sediment is increased.

d. All artificially deepened dredged areas that are not necessary for boat traffic should be modified to promotea water-clarifying benthic community by


• Shallowing the bottom with fill to a depth of less than six feet and planting seagrasses or

• Using clean construction debris to create artificial hardbottom community reefs.

Justification: Shallowing deep dredged bottoms will permit re-establishment of substrate-stabilizingcommunities, increase Bay productivity and reduce soft bare bottom areas that are responsible for much ofthe resuspended turbidity in northern Biscayne Bay.

e. To prevent the migration of flocculent bottom material (ooze) to sites of resuspension, all artificiallydeepened dredged areas should be bounded by berms six feet or less in depth. Berms should be planted withseagrasses for stabilization.

Justification: The flocculent surface of the deeper bare bottom areas in northern Biscayne Bay commonly deepenand constrict at gaps between causeway islands. As a result, the tidal currents focused at these necks constantlyresuspend bottom flocculent matter that migrates towards the deeper necks. Shallow underwater berms wouldisolate off deeper dredged areas away from the channel necks.

f. The introduction of turbidity and nutrients through natural and artificial canals and channels should bemonitored, and, if significant, flow modified or berms created to limit these sources.

Justification: Canals commonly receive both fine sediment deposition from Biscayne Bay. Pollutants and toxicantsfrom freshwater runoff also enter the canals and commonly adhere to the fine particles. Re-release of this finesediment back to the Bay (during flood discharge events) both increases the amount of fine sediment and turbidity inthe Bay and introduces adsorbed contaminants.

These measures should increase water clarity in the area north of Rickenbacker Causeway so that sea grass and hardbottom communities can increase their depth range and begin to move into the remaining artificially deepened dredgedbottoms.

2. Improving and Protecting All of Biscayne Bay

Most important in improving and protecting the water clarity throughout Biscayne Bay is honestly addressingphysical stresses of boat activity. We must treat boat traffic across the shallow benthic communities of Biscayne Bayin the same way that we treat vehicular traffic on land, controlling speeds, prohibiting digging up of the roadbed,restricting vehicles from driving on the vegetative communities in our parks and gardens, and limiting the travel oftrucks.

a. Quantify the impact and short- and long-term stresses to water clarity and benthic communities caused byboating activity, and monitor the changes in water clarity and benthic community health as modificationsto permitted boating activity are made.

Justification: With increased use of medium to large boats in Biscayne Bay, bottom resuspension, bottom scour anddamage to benthic communities can be expected. Commercial and recreational use of the Bay’s waters should notdegrade the water or the benthic communities of the Bay.

b. Eliminate use of large thrust commercial boats, tugs, and barges from southern Biscayne Bay. The Tug/barge delivering diesel fuel to Turkey Point is a blatant example.

Justification: Commercial and recreational use of the Bay’s waters should not degrade the water or the benthiccommunities of the Bay.

c. Limit all boats with large thrust and wake to idle speed if in other than the main east-west shippingchannels to and from the Bay.


Justification: This will encourage the larger and more powerful boats to travel offshore, the place for which theywere designed.

d. Better mark channels through the Safety Valve, Featherbed Bank and other shallow areas.

Justification: This will reduce the damage to sea grasses caused by prop scour and excavation.

e. Have map boards at marinas with directions, notification of penalties for bay bottom damage and educa-tion on value of benthic communities.


f. Have brochures provided with boat tag renewals, with marine officer citations, at all put ins, and at marinestores that provide directions, notification of penalties for bay bottom damage and education on value ofbenthic communities.


D. Future Evolution Of Biscayne Bay In Response To Hurricanes,And Sea Level Rise

In planning for the future health of the Biscayne Bay system, it is imperative to incorporate those changing influences thatwill drive changes in the system from how we presently perceive it. Any evaluation for the management of Biscayne Baymust be made for long-term management of its health. If the goal is to design management and policy goals for the next 50years, then the systems models must be verified for at least 100 years. Of the future changes that will most certainly drivechanges to the Biscayne Bay system in the next century, there are two that stand out: future population growth and impactsof global warming. The following is adapted from Wanless (1991) Wanless et al (1994) and the variety of above mentionedarticles on sedimentologic evolution of Biscyane Bay.

During the past 2,400 years, our south Florida coastal and interior Everglades environments have evolved to theirpresent character under the influence of a very slow relative rise in sea level. This rate averaged 5 cm per century, rising fromabout -1.2m to its present (1930) level during that period. In response, our beaches, barrier islands, and marl-levee coastlinesstabilized and grew, and the vast mangrove swamps of the southwest Florida coast expanded over shoaling nearshore envi-ronments to take on their present character. In Biscayne Bay, the mainland mangrove coastline was stable or slowly ero-sional, likely in response to exposure to NE winds of winter storms. Freshwater wetlands behind produced organic andcarbonate deposits helping to raise the level of the Everglades system. The Safety Valve mud bank at the margin of BiscayneBay grew to their present shallowness and breadth, and the interior Featherbed Banks, at least south Featherbed, wasinitiated and built during this period. This gradual sea level rise and its constructive growth phase to our coastal environ-ments are over.

Beginning in 1930, a 23-cm (9-inch) rise of sea level has occurred in south Florida. This is equal to a rate of about 30cm (12 inches) per century, about 6 times that of the past 2,400 years. This increased rate of rise has severely destabilized oursandy, mud, and mangrove coastlines and banks and initiated dramatic changes in them. This rise has destabilized thecoastal mangrove communities and resulted in significant transgression: storm erosion of mangrove coastlines (to 100 m),storm-initiated loss within mangrove forests, and rapid landward expansion of the red, black and white mangrove ecotones.

A further 60-cm (24-inch) relative sea level rise is projected for the next century in response to global warming (ourcurrent rate plus the projected further 30 cm in response to global warming. This rise will set into motion a near catastrophicevolution of the coastal environments of south Florida similar to that which occurred between 2,500 and 2,400 year beforepresent. The types of changes that will occur to Biscayne Bay include: catastrophic loss of the coastal mangrove fringe,


increased erosion of barrier island beaches and increased frequency of flooding and overwash, and increased frequency offlooding of the artificial islands in and filled margins to the Bay. In addition there are several changes that will fundamen-tally change the nature of Biscayne Bay: breaching of low areas of Elliott Key, providing new connections to offshore waters,increasing the tidal prism as landward former wetlands are added to the daily tidal flooding, enlargement of tidal channels atthe entrance to the Bay. There are yet other fundamental changes that will occur for which we cannot yet define the rate ormagnitude, but which may most fundamentally affect the Biscayne Bay system. These include: erosion and reconfigurationof the Safety Valve mud bank and mud banks within the Bay; nutrient and turbidity levels in a systems with higher rates oferosive recycling of contained mud and peat environments; effect on timing and distribution of freshwater input from a moresluggish (less elevation above base level) Everglades; changes in salinity and circulation of various sectors of the bay; andchanges in benthic community structure.

Future changes in south Florida’s coastal and freshwater wetlands can be mapped using knowledge of coastal evolutionduring the past 4,000 years under known sea level conditions. Five principles are forming the foundation for the preliminaryforecast mapping presently underway by Wanless: 1) hurricanes initiate devastating changes to both the coastal margin andthe interior of mangrove forests; 2) mangrove forest recovery or evolution is closely related to types of sediment substrateand rate of sea level rise; 3) landward mangrove migration is controlled by tidal (channel bound) and hurricane surge (not-channel bound) seeding; 4) freshwater drainage (non-channeled Everglades) and saline intrusion (channeled and non-channeled tidal waters) are closely tied to subtleties in the low-lying limestone topography and will dramatically changeduring rapidly rising sea level; and 5) different substrates have differing resistance to physical erosion and recycling duringtransgression. Substrates, from physically most to least resistant, are: Pleistocene limestone, coastal marl levee deposits,marine carbonate mudbank, mangrove peat, muddy sands, and sand. In addition, transgressed peat substrates, if not coveredby other sediment, are prone to rapid erosion by burrowing and oxidation.

Mapping of the future patterns of coastal erosion, wetland evolution and upland inundation are made by interfacingthese principles with mapped distributions of surface environments, substrate types and thicknesses, limestone topography/bathymetry, present surface topography, and differing rates of sea level rise.

Recommendations

It is imperative that the high probability for significant future sea level rise be addressed head on. A recent discussion inScience demonstrates the cost, waste and increased risk that occurs if the reality of future sea level rise is not incorporated into planning and design for the future of low-lying coastal cities (Ammerman and McClennen, 2000). The following areconsidered high priority recommendation as they provide the foundation for modeling and design of the Biscayne Bay of thefuture.

a. Assess the quantitative effect of the past 70 years of increased rate of relative sea level rise on the environ-ments and waters in and marginal to Biscayne Bay.

Justification: The 0.7-foot rise in sea level over the past 70 years is about 7 times faster than the rate over the past2,000 years. As a result there have already been fundamental changes in the stability of the coastlines, wetlands,mudbanks, circulation, and hydrology of Biscayne Bay.

b. Using knowledge of the response of coastal and shallow marine environments to differing rates of relativesea level rise (form geologic studies of south Florida), assess how the coastal and shallow marine environ-ments in various settings of Biscayne Bay will respond over the next 100 years to a further sea level rise of1 and 2 feet.

• Create a map and dynamic model of how the marine, coastal and upland environments in andmarginal to Biscayne Bay will look in 50 and 100 years with a 1 and a 2 foot rise in relative sea


level.






Justification: The above research/modeling exercise will provide a visual model of future changes in theconfiguration of the substrate and the Bay margins, circulation, salinity, distribution of habitats, and fociof human stress over the next century. This will provide the foundation for all long-term management,legislative and policy strategies.

c. Incorporate the reality of the historical rapid rise in sea level and the high probability of further futureincreases in the rate of sea level rise into every aspect of planning for the future of Biscayne Bay andMiami-Dade County.

Justification: Without using the produced knowledge of the future of Biscayne Bay, management and policydecisions will be meaningless and likely environmentally and economically harmful to the Bay and the people ofsouth Florida.

E. WHAT IS KNOWN AND WHAT IS NOT ADEQUATELY KNOWNA. Limestone Substrate

A.1. Limestone Porosity and Permeability Properties

Known:General lithology, stratigraphy, porosity and permeability.

General aquifer/hydrologic characteristics.

Not Known:Local characteristics of stratigraphic aquitards and aquicludes that affect flow of upland inputs and flowinto the Bay.

The specific role of interconnected solution cavities in defining flow from uplands into the Bay.

How change in freshwater head in upland has changed inflow into Biscayne Bay

Amount of inflow and outflow of freshwater and salt water and freshwater into and out of the substrate inareas of exposed limestone in Biscayne Bay.

Dynamics of tidal pumping through limestone at margin of Biscayne Bay.


How historical rise in sea level and forecast future rise ins sea level has changed/ will change the dynamicsof groundwater flow.

A.2. Differentiating Role of Historical Rainfall from Human Modifications in Surface/Groundwater Flow

Known:The historical trends, fluctuations and extremes in rainfall and temperature.

Not Known:How these have influenced the benthic environment and community dynamics in Biscayne Bay.

B. Biscayne Bay EnvironmentsB.1. Marine Environmental

Known:General origin of sediment bodies and sedimentary environments in and marginal to Biscayne Bayresponse to sea level history.

General dynamics of sediment bodies and sedimentary environments in and marginal to Biscayne Bay inresponse to prevailing conditions, storm events, sea level change, and human stresses of nutrients,turbidity, and physical damage.

Not Known:Historical distribution of bay bottom and coastal wetland environments.

How, when and to what extent these have changed in response to:

1. Natural stresses and natural stresses within the Bay,

2. Human modifications within the Bay;

3. Human stresses within and to the Bay;

4. Changes in the type and amount of freshwater flow to the bay;

5. Historical rise in sea level.

Interacting influences of the sedimentary environments in and marginal to Biscayne Bay.

B.2. Coastal Wetlands

Known:General historical evolution in response to setting and sea level rise.

Major hurricanes are initiators of dramatic steps of change.

Not Known:Effect of historical sea level rise on erosion of mangrove margin and deterioration of mangrove forestinterior..

Effect of historical hurricanes on coastal wetland evolution (before and after increase in rate of sea levelrise).

Effect of future sea level forecasts of loss of coastal wetlands and landward area of migration.


C. TurbidityC.1. Soft-sediment Bottoms in Biscayne Bay

Known:General Origin and Dynamics of mud banks and muddy bottom sediment in central and south BiscayneBay.

Barren bottoms of northern Biscayne Bay enhance turbidity.

Not Known:Rate of erosion of vegetatively stabilized versus barren bottoms.

Role of boat traffic and scour, storms and bottom trawling in destabilizing muddy banks and bottoms.

Sediment bodies that have become unstable through physical modification to the Bay and throughhistorical and forecast future sea level rise.

Type and rate of change that can be expected.

C.2. Causes for Turbidity

Known:Unbulkheaded fill shorelines and banks and unstabilized barren bottoms are undesirable sources ofturbidity release.

Vertical sea walls and other altered shorelines accentuate turbidity by not providing a habitat for filteringorganisms and by reflecting wave energy.

Higher nutrient levels can accentuate turbidity through promoting plankton production.

Not Known:Rate and timing of turbidity release from sediment bodies that have become unstable through physicalmodification to their bottom and through historical and forecast future sea level rise. Type and rate ofchange that can be expected.

Role of various filter feeders on turbidity removal.

D. Catastrophic Events and Sea Level ChangeD.1. Historical Changes in Sea Level

Known:There has been an 0.7 foot rise in sea level in south Florida since 1930.

This is a rate about 10x faster than for the past 2,000 years

Not Known:How and to what extent this change in sea level has initiated changes in the stability of sediment bodies,sedimentary environments, and communities in and adjacent to Biscayne Bay.

To what extent the tidal prism has changed and how this change has affected circulation and environ-ments in and adjacent to Biscayne Bay.


D.2. Forecast Future Changes in Sea Level

Known:A further rise of sea level of 1-2.5 feet is forecast for the coming century.

Not Known:How the tidal dynamics, circulation, sediment bodies, sedimentary environments, coastal wetlands, stormflooding frequency, levels and patterns, turbidity, nutrient and toxin dispersal, coastal stability, andsalinity patterns will change with a further 1-, 2-, and 3-foot rise in sea level over the next 100 years.

How the barriers defining the eastern margin of Biscayne Bay (barrier islands, sand tidal deltas, carbonatemud and sand banks, and low limestone islands) will change with a further 1-, 2-, and 3-foot rise in sealevel over the next 100 years.

Which sedimentary bodies and communities will be most affected, in what manner and to what extentwith a further 1-, 2-, and 3-foot rise in sea level over the next 100 years.

How previous and anticipated future modifications will affect the nature and amount of change in theabove listed characteristics of Biscayne Bay with a further 1-, 2-, and 3-foot rise in sea level over the next100 years.

What will be the usefulness each future development and future restoration/improvement in light of witha further 1-, 2-, and 3-foot rise in sea level over the next 100 years?

How will salt-water intrusion respond to a further 1-, 2-, and 3-foot rise in sea level over the next 100years?

How will freshwater and upland pollutant input be influenced by a further 1-, 2-, 3-foot rise in sea levelover the next 100 years?

D.3. Stress of Hurricanes and other Catastrophic Events

Known:That hurricanes and other catastrophic events cause damage - recovery cycles in Bay environments andcommunities.

That hurricanes and other catastrophic events can initiate evolution of Bay and coastal wetland environ-ments and communities.

That hurricanes and other catastrophic events will initiate evolution in stressed environments andcommunities.

Not Known:How, where, and to what extent historical catastrophic events have caused damage - recovery cycles and/or have initiated evolution of environments and communities.

How, where, and to what extent damage - recovery cycles and event- initiated evolution is associated withstresses caused by human modifications and/or with historical changes in freshwater discharge and sealevel changes.


E. Historical ImprovementsKnown:

Specific improvements have been made to the bottom environment (e.g. sea grass replanting, artificialreef construction, shallowing bottom), the coastline (replacing sea walls and unbulkheaded shorelines withrip rap and mangroves), and to the nutrient loads entering Biscayne Bay (e.g. sewage and phosphate).

Not Known:How and to what extent each change actually has modified (hopefully improved) the quality of theBiscayne Bay environment.

Has a ‘critical mass’ of improvements been made to result in a meaningful improvement in the quality ofthe Bay environments? What is the ‘critical mass?’

What are the most cost effective, recreationally useful, and habitat beneficial improvements?

REFERENCESAigner, T., 1985. Storm Depositional Systems: Dynamic Stratigraphy in Modern and Ancient Shallow Marine Sequences.

In: Friedmen, G.M., Neugebauer, H.J., and Seilacher, A. (Editors), Lecture Notes in Earth Sci. No. 3, Springer-Verlag,New York, 174p.

Ammerman, A.J., and McClennen, C.E., 2000. Saving Venice, Science, v. 289 (5483), p. 1301-2.

Bryne, J.B., 1999. Groundwater Nutrient Loading in Biscayne Bay, Biscayne National Park, Florida. M.S. Thesis, FloridaInternational University, Miami Florida, 78 p.

Chardon, R.E., 1976. A geographical History of the Biscayne Bay area. p. 235-245, In: Thorhaug, A., and Volker, A.(Editors), Biscayne Bay: Past, Present and Future. University of Miami, Sea Grant Special Report, No. 5, 315p.

Chardon, R.E., 1978. Coastal barrier changes, 1770-1867, Biscayne Bay area, Florida. Geology, vol. 6, p. 333-336.

Harlem, P.W., 1979. Aerial photographic interpretation of the historical changes in northern Biscayne Bay, Florida; 1925-1976. Sea Grant Technical Bull. No. 40, Miami, 151 p.

Kohout, F.A., 1966. Submarine springs: a neglected phenomenon in coastal hydrography, pp. 391-413, In: World TechnologySymposium on Hydrology and Water Resources Development, Israel, Feb. 5-12.

Kohout, F.A., 1967. Relation of Seaward and Landward Flow of Groundwater to the Salinity of Biscayne Bay. M.S. Thesis,University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL.

Kohout, F.A., and Kolipinski, M.C., 1967. Biological zonation related to groundwater discharge along the shore of BiscayneBay, Miami, Florida. Pp 488-499, In: Estuaries, American Association for the Advancement of Science

Meeder, J.F., Harlem, P.W., Ross, M.S., Gaiser, E., Jaffe, R., 2000. Southern Biscayne Bay Watershed Historic Creek Character-ization (TSAKS 1, 2, and 3) Annual Report. Southeast Environmental Research Program, Florida International Univer-sity, 16 p.

Meeder, J., Renshaw, A., Alvord, J., Ross, M., 1999a. Flux From Mangrove Tidal Creeks at the L-31E Freshwater RedistributionPilot Project Site: Biscayne Bay, Florida. Southeast Environmental Research Program, Florida International University, 12p., 119 figures, and 12 Tables.


Meeder, J.F., Ross, M.S., and Ruiz, P., 1999b. Characterization of Historic Biscayne Bay Watersheds, First Quarterly Report.Southeast Environmental Research Program, Florida International University, 19 p.

Ross, M.S., Meeder, J.F., Ruiz, P.L., Renshaw, A., Telesnicki, G.T., Alvord, J., Jacobson, M., Byrnes, M., Atlas, Z.D., Reed,D., Fry, B., Lewin, M.T., and Weekley, C., 1999. The L-31E Surface Water Rediversion Pilot Project: Phase 1 Final Report.Southeast Environmental Research Program, Florida International University, 148p.

Teas, H.J., Chardon, R.E., and Wanless, H.R., 1976. Effects of man on shore vegetation of Biscayne Bay. p. 133-156, In:Thorhaug, A., and Volker, A. (Editors), Biscayne Bay: Past, Present and Future. University of Miami, Sea Grant SpecialReport, No. 5, 315p.

Tedesco, L.P., and Wanless, H.R., 1995. Growth and burrow transformation of carbonate banks: comparison of modernskeletal banks of south Florida and Pennsylvanian phylloid banks of southeastern Kansas, USA. In: Monty, C.L.V.,Bosence, D., Bridges, P., and Pratt, B. (Editors), Mud-Mounds: Their Origin and Evolution, Spec. Publ. No. 23, Interna-tional Association of Sedimentologists, p. 495-522.

Wanless, H.R., 1969. Sediments of Biscayne Bay - Distribution and Depositional History. M.S. Thesis, University of Miami,Coral Gables, Florida, 260 p.

Wanless, H.R., 1974. Mangrove sedimentation in geologic perspective, In: Gleason, P. (Editor), Environmental of SouthFlorida: Present and Past. Miami Geological Society Memoir 2, Coral Gables, Fl, p. 190-200.

Wanless, H.R., 1976. Geologic setting and recent sediments of the Biscayne Bay region. p. 1-32, In: Thorhaug, A., andVolker, A. (Editors). Biscayne Bay: Past, Present and Future. University of Miami, Sea Grant Special Report No. 5, 315p..

Wanless, H.R., 1976. Man’s impact on sedimentary environments and processes. p. 287-300, In: Thorhaug, A., and Volker,A. (Editors). Biscayne Bay: Past, Present and Future. University of Miami, Sea Grant Special Report No. 5, 315 p.

Wanless, H.R., 1982. Sea level is rising — so what? Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, vol. 52, p. 1051-1054.

Wanless, H.R., 1991. Observational foundation for sequence modeling. p. 42-62, In: E.K. Franceen, W.L. Watney, C.G.St.C.Kendall, and W. Ross (Editors) Sedimentary Modeling: Computer simulations and methods for improved parameterdefinition, Kansas Geological Survey Bull. 233.

Wanless, H.R., Tedesco, L.P., Rossinsky, V., and Dravis, J.J., 1989. Carbonate Environments and Sequences of Caicos PlatformWith an Introductory Evaluation of South Florida. American

Geophysical Union, 28th International Geological Congress Field Trip Guidebook T374, 75 p.

Wanless, H.R., Cottrell, D., Parkinson, R., and Burton, E., 1983. Sources and Circulation of Turbidity in Biscayne Bay, Florida.Final Report to Dade County and Florida Sea Grant. 499p.

Wanless, H.R., Parkinson, R.P., and Tedesco, L.P., 1994. Sea level control on the stability of Everglades wetlands. In: Davis,S.M., and Ogden, J.C., (Editors), Everglades, the Ecosystems and Its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Del Ray Beach, FL, p199-222.

Wanless, H.R., Cottrell, D.J., Tagett, M.G., Tedesco, L.P., and Warzeski, E.R., 1995. Origin and growth of carbonate mudbanks in south Florida: a reevaluation. In: Monty, C.L.V., Bosence, D., Bridges, P., and Pratt, B. (Editors), Mud-Mounds:Their Origin and Evolution, Spec. Publ. No. 23, International Association of Sedimentologists, p. 439-474.

Wanless, H.R., and Tagett, M.G., 1989. Origin, growth and evolution of carbonate mudbanks in Florida Bay, Bulletin ofMarine Science, Vol. 44, p. 454-489.


Warzeski, E.R., 1975. Growth History and Sedimentary Dynamics of Caesar’s Creek Bank. M.S. Thesis, University of Miami,195 p.

Warzeski, E.R., 1976. Storm sedimentation in the Biscayne Bay region. p. 33-38, In: Thorhaug, A., and Volker, A. (Editors).Biscayne Bay: Past, Present and Future. University of Miami, Sea Grant Special Report No. 5, 315 p.


Hydrodynamics and Mass Transport135

Hydrodynamics and Mass Transport

Co-chairs:

Thomas N. Lee and John D. Wang

Authors:

Thomas N. Lee and John D. Wang

Contributors:

David Schmidt, Douglas Wilson, John Proni, and Raul Patterson


ScopePhysical processes and their interactions

BackgroundThe currents in Biscayne Bay move the water and with it any suspended or dissolved matter. These currents are responsiblefor moving water between the coastal wetlands and the bay and from there out into adjacent waters such as Hawk Channeland the Atlantic Ocean. The current response is driven by astronomical tides, wind, and freshwater input forcing. Thus thestudy of hydrodynamics and mass transport strives to not only understand the current patterns and regimes, but also trans-port pathways, water exchange, and residence times.

ConcernsThe major concern is to have a sound scientific knowledge base and predictive tools adequate for assessing the health andsustainability of the existing system and for evaluating the impacts of planned modifications to the system. Specific concernsregarding hydrodynamics:

I. Availability of sufficient data to construct predictive models

II. Availability of useful models in a timely manner.

III. Hindcasts, for example of what were the conditions in the unaltered natural system

IV. Predictions that allow assessment of future plans, for example restoration scenarios

V. Availability of a skilled and knowledgeable modeling group

Two-dimensional (2D) hydrodynamic numerical models that relate salinity distributions to freshwater inflow exist forBiscayne Bay. However, none are fully responsive to all concerns. The most comprehensive model, which includes the entireBay, is designed to link to the USGS Biscayne Bay groundwater flow model. This hydrodynamic model, however, is still inthe development stage, requires long computer run times, and does not perform well in the critical near-shore and intertidalzone. Salinity patterns in this zone are of greatest interest with respect to defining targets for freshwater inflow based onrestoring the Bay’s nursery function for estuarine-dependent species. Detailed topographic data and salinity data to supportimprovements in near-shore representations of salinity patterns by this or alternative models are lacking. Even thoughBiscayne Bay is predominately shallow and well-mixed, there appears to be a need for 3-D modeling capability in certain keyareas, such as near point-source freshwater inflows, deeper channels and holes, and at the deep-draft navigation project ofMiami Harbor. Furthermore, there is concern about the accuracy of available freshwater input data. If these data needs couldbe met, a hydrodynamic model might be used not only to estimate salinity patterns under future proposed water manage-ment schemes, but also to provide a view of what salinity patterns, in relation to rainfall, might look like if freshwater flowcame from a natural, unaltered watershed.

1. Issues that need to be better described and understood:

a. Fresh water input to Bay - canal runoff, ground water, sheet flow, Miami River, effective rainfall.

b. Flushing rates and residence times - transport and exchange within Bay, between different compartmentsof the Bay, and Bay/Ocean exchange - What are the exchange pathways within the Bay and with sur-rounding regions.


c. Circulation response to forcing mechanisms - The Bay’s response to atmospheric forcing (winds, evapora-tion, precipitation); tidal forcing; other fresh water inputs; and oceanic forcing need to be better under-stood for semi-daily, daily, seasonal, annual and interannual time scales. Understanding the response totransient storms and sea breeze is important.

d. Spatial and temporal distribution of salinity, turbidity and nutrients in water column and sediment need tobe better observed.

e. Future shoreline/bay development - canals, shoreline configuration, dredging, system loadings, nutrients,boat resuspension of sediments, deepening of Port of Miami, Miami River dredging, Homestead AirforceBase are all issues that can effect the water quality of the Bay.

2. What do we know about these issues:

a. Most issues require future observational and modeling studies to adequately understand their influence onthe Bay.

b. Those issues that are understood are: tides, statistics of large scale atmospheric forcing and some pointsource information.

c. North Bay was fresh or estuarine in the distant past.

d. The quantities and timing of freshwater going to south Bay were different in the natural system.

3. Existing studies that address issues:

a. USGS is working on SEAWAT, a finite difference variable density numerical model for the purpose ofsimulating groundwater seepage to the Bay.

b. Place holder awaiting input: FAU, in cooperation with SFWMD is developing an adaptation ofMODFLOW, a 3-D finite difference groundwater and wetland flow model in support of the Lower EastCoast Water Supply Plan.

c. DERM has an ongoing monitoring/sampling program and has initiated a hydrodynamic modeling studywith the COE. The modeling is being accomplished as a three phase effort. Phase I is application of theRMA-10 2-D hydrodynamic model plus salinity to Biscayne Bay. This effort is underway and observationaldata (currents, temperature and salinity) have been collected for verification purposes. Phase II is aplanned water quality model. And Phase III is a planned coupled biological/physical model.

d. University of Miami, RSMAS, has developed and applied a 2-D hydrodynamic model that includessalinity to south Bay and adjacent coastal region. The model uses realistic forcing including all types offreshwater input. Simulations have been made for several 31 years periods (restoration scenarios 95 Baseand D13R4).

e. University of Miami, RSMAS, has also developed a muliti-species population dynamics model for the Bayand coastal region that is coupled to the RSMAS hydrodynamic model.

f. DERM in cooperation with SFWMD is developing a storm water numerical model to simulate dailyamount, timing, and distribution of 118 pollutants entering the Bay for wet, dry and average year events.

4. What extent will new research be needed: New research is needed on most of the issues listed above, but inparticular there is a need for:

a. Better observations/model of fresh water inputs to Bay - canal, ground, sheet flow, precipitation.


b. Better observations/model of atmospheric forcing of Bay - resolution of winds, evaporation/precipitationcompatible with hydrodynamic models. An atmospheric model should be developed to provide forcing tothe Bay circulation model.

c. Accurate modeling of topographic (e.g. ICW, dredge holes) and coastal wetlands and surf zones in bothnorth and south Bay.

d. Improved observations of Bay circulation, transport pathways, salinity patterns and exchange/flushingproperties for comparison with models and to improve understanding of Bays residence times and futureloadings. Understanding of transport and mixing relevant to transient point sources and for non-conserva-tive substances is especially needed.

e. Biscayne Bay model should incorporate the flow exchange with adjacent coastal water and as neededinclude the effects of the Florida Current with realistic frontal eddies.

f. Need to couple the new USGS groundwater model to the Water Management Model because it providessubstantially different groundwater inflows to Biscayne Bay than that estimated by the Water ManagementModel.

g. Need to know the manner in which water enters the Bay (i.e., as ground or surface water, as point sourcedischarge or sheet flow/tidal creek flow, or as high frequency pulse flows or sustained flows) and does thisaffect the relationship between freshwater inflow and salinity patterns? Does point discharge from canalsmix with, and influence, salinities in the nearshore western Bay? What do the salinity contours resultingfrom this mixing look like? Did a narrow (or not so narrow) zone of brackish water (5-25 ppt) exist at alltimes along the western edge of the Bay? This would take only a small amount of fresh water, but wouldrequire water storage capacity to supply inflow for dry seasons.

h. Need to know the salinity regime of South Biscayne Bay prior to drainage and distinguish the westernnearshore area.

i. Need to know the effect of advanced-treatment reuse water would have on Biscayne Bay?

j. Need to be able to predict the effect of freshwater inflow on salinity and circulation patterns. Existingmodels need to have improved resolution in the western Bay to be useful in evaluating effects of freshwaterinflow on salinity patterns and also to be used in addressing water redistribution from canal flow to sheetflow.

k. Need estimates of groundwater flows and surface flows before canals.

l. Should develop means of redistributing canal discharges through mangroves and coastal marshes toimprove nursery habitat for fish and foraging habitat for wading birds.

m. Need better understanding of wave climate for nearshore zone dynamics and turbidity.


RecommendationsThere is a close relationship between water management, salinities, and water quality in Biscayne Bay. The temporal andspatial variation of salinity is a major controlling factor on the type and growth of fish populations and benthic communi-ties. To properly estimate salinities and effects of point and non-point sources on Biscayne Bay water quality, better informa-tion on freshwater inflows and predictive models are needed, which will require the following developments:

1. Determine the quality, quantity and timing of fresh water discharges to the bay from all sources, present andpredrainage.

2. Develop calibrated, verified hydrodynamic model of the Bay circulation, salinity distribution, and exchanges withthe coastal ocean, and which is or can be coupled to atmospheric forcing, water quality, and biological models.

3. Use the hydrodynamic models to help evaluate the ramifications of issues 1.5

4. Hindcast predrainage circulation and salinity patterns.

5. Water quality including suspended solids resulting from point and non-point sources of pollution is a criticalconcern. “End effects” ecological models coupled with the hydrodynamic models are needed. Traditional nutrient/primary production type models are likely useful only as research tools for a long time to come. To prepare for thesemodels, hydrodynamic transport and mixing data are needed.

6. A better understanding of the water wave climate and the effect of waves on bottom resuspension and surf zonemixing is needed.

7. Develop a long-term monitoring strategy of important physical/biological parameters that are transmitted in real-time for use in predictive models to detect changes in the state-of-the-bay.

8. Develop Biscayne Bay endpoints (important characteristics) and model output parameters for water quality andbiological communities. Knowing the endpoints is helpful to numerical model selection, grid design, data collec-tion, and model development.

9. Assemble a group of individuals with sufficient knowledge in oceanographic and hydrologic data collection, dataanalysis, modeling, model application, and with intimate familiarity with local conditions to participate in theabove efforts.


watershed hydrology141

watershed hydrology

Co-chairs:

Joan A. Browder and Raul Patterson

Authors:

Joan A. Browder, Sarah A. Bellmund, Matthew Davis, Stephen T. Sutterfield, RaulPatterson, Shawn Sculley, and Christopher Langevin

Contributors:

Gwen Burzycki and John D. Wang


BACKGROUNDIntroductionBiscayne Bay is dependent upon continued and sufficient freshwater inflow. The Bay historically and currently has receivedits freshwater from groundwater, surface water, and rainfall. Historic changes in land use and water management in thewatershed have altered the volume, distribution, and timing of water flowing into the Bay. Freshwater inflow has beensignificantly shifted from groundwater to surface water and has been changed from sheet flow through coastal wetlands intopoint-source discharge from canals directly into the Bay. Recent evaluations predict that future urban and agriculturaldevelopment and water withdrawals for urban drinking water will reduce the amount of water flowing to the Bay.

Two major regional water management planning processes are in progress that will affect freshwater flow to BiscayneBay and require the input of scientific information. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) has beendeveloped under a Federal-State partnership and is designed to restructure the Central and Southern Florida [water manage-ment] Project to better meet water flow needs for ecological and human systems. The Lower East Coast Water SupplyPlanning (LECRWSP) process is a State initiative to meet the water supply needs for the environment and human uses.Both the LECRWSP process and CERP will use State water law to establish Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs) [Section373.042 F. S.] and provide reservation of water for preservation and/or restoration water deliveries [Section 373.223(4) F. S.].The LECRWSP process provides for adopting these MFLs and water reservations as rules by 2004, before the South FloridaWater Management District begins issuing new 20-year consumptive use permits for water users. These processes are to bebased on sound science, using ecological and physical criteria. An understanding of freshwater flow quantity, timing,delivery, and quality and their biological effects is necessary to accurately design the State rules for these processes. Inaddition, this information is needed throughout planning, detailed design, and implementation phases of both CERP andthe LECRWSP. Modeling will be used to predict biological effects when selecting among alternative components anddesigns under CERP. Monitoring will be used to evaluate each component and provide information on the success of eachprocess, which will be used to make plan improvements.

Biscayne Bay’s future depends upon having reliable scientific information and modeling tools to adequately protect itsresources in the further development and implementation of regional restoration and water supply programs. The watermanagement plans, as presently formulated, have major uncertainties concerning effects on Biscayne Bay. This is especiallytrue with CERP, which will substantially restructure the regional water management system. Fortunately efforts are beingmade to reduce these uncertainties and improve the Plan, but major gaps exist in the information and modeling tools thatare needed. Responding to these needs is urgent because of the rapid pace of watershed planning and population growth.

This chapter provides a brief description of the watershed and freshwater flows to Biscayne Bay, indicates where criticalinformation is lacking, and makes recommendations to ensure a more sustainable future for Biscayne Bay.

Physical Setting and Land-useThe Biscayne Bay watershed contains a mix of highly urbanized, industrial, suburban, and agricultural lands that originallydeveloped along the Atlantic coastal ridge. The Atlantic coastal ridge is an irregular geological feature of high land with amaximum elevation in Miami-Dade County of no more than 25 ft (near Coconut Grove). Prior to extensive drainage, landuse patterns were determined by availability of higher land for development. Current population density and urbanizationfollow early development patterns; the highest density development is generally in the north and eastern portions of theCounty along the coastal ridge. The area north of Snapper Creek was largely drained by the mid-1920s, and land use


intensified over the next few decades, pushing agricultural uses west and south. In South Miami-Dade, agricultural uses werepredominant up until the 1960’s, when the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project was completed. When floodcontrol became possible in this low lying area, urban uses began to intrude on agricultural land uses and wetlands in thisregion, and has continued at a rapid pace to the present time. Although these areas are still mainly agricultural, urban sprawlhas resulted in a change toward residential, commercial and industrial land uses. The canals of the northern Bay drainprimarily urban and industrial land. Canals through the southern watershed drain land that is still primarily agricultural. Thelargest inputs to the Bay are from Snake Creek and the Miami River (Cooper and Lane 1987) in the northern Bay. TheMiami River is part of the regional canal system, and, for this reason, Miami River flow can include water derived from LakeOkeechobee, the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) and the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs). (The Miami River isnot used to drain the EAA, but rather to provide water to the southeast coast to prevent salt intrusion and supply urbanwells.)

Geology and HydrogeologyBiscayne Bay is underlain by the easternmost edge of the Biscayne Aquifer and is hydrologically connected to the Evergladesto the west. The Biscayne aquifer, which underlies and forms South Florida’s eastern coastal ridge from roughly Boca Ratonsouth, is highly permeable. The two principal formations of the Biscayne Aquifer are the Tamiami Formation, formed duringthe Pliocene Age, which forms its lower depths, and Miami oolite, of Pleistocene (Late Sangamon) Age, that overlies it(Parker and Cooke 1944). The Biscayne aquifer is an unconfined surficial aquifer recharged primarily by direct rainfall(SFWMD, 1992). Infiltration rate and transmissivity are very high except where inhibited by pavement. Under naturalconditions, the groundwater hydraulic connection between Biscayne Bay and the Everglades was much stronger. Beforedrainage and even historically (which includes the period of record through the present), freshwater flowed to the bay asboth surface and ground water. Surface water flowed to the Bay through tributaries, coastal creeks, and through depressionalfeatures known as transverse glades. Groundwater levels were much higher and therefore contributed much more to the totalfreshwater discharge to the Bay. As water built up on behind the coastal ridge, the hydraulic head drove ground waterseepage into the Bay.

Description of the Water Management SystemCurrently, freshwater flow to Biscayne Bay is almost entirely through a system of canals, including those formed from theoriginal natural rivers. Although many of these canals were originally dug during the first half of the 20th Century, theproject as currently built and operated was authorized by Congress in 1948 as the Central and Southern Florida Project forFlood Control and Other Purposes and was later renamed the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project. The originalconstruction beginning the draining of the Everglades and the decline of groundwater levels was the ditch connecting LakeOkeechobee with the Caloosahatchee River in 1883 (see Dancy 1884, Duval 1884). The Miami Canal was connected to theMiami River and all obstructions removed by 1909 (SFWMD, 1992). By 1925, all the major canals north of Snapper Creekhad been constructed. These canals were improved and additional canals dug for the C&SF Project. This project wasauthorized in response to disastrous flooding in South Florida from hurricanes in late 1947 and was designed primarily as aflood control system, although salinity control was also included in the design features to protect municipal well fields fromsalt water intrusion. Other purposes of the overall C&SF Project include: navigation; water supply for agricultural irrigation,municipalities, industry, Everglades National Park; regional groundwater control; enhancement of fish and wildlife; andrecreation.

Currently nineteen canals discharge fresh water into Biscayne Bay. These canals maintain flood control in 17 easternMiami-Dade County surface water management basins (Cooper and Lane, 1987). Water levels are controlled in Miami-Dade County by the regional canals of the C&SF Project including the South Dade Conveyance System (SDCS), smaller


local drainage canals, and stormwater infrastructure projects. Criteria for operation of the Project canals, including theSDCS, are set by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the canals are operated by the South Florida Water ManagementDistrict (SFWMD). Project conveyance canals are used to regulate water levels in the Water Conservation Areas of theEverglades by releasing water to coastal waters, including Biscayne Bay. Canal levels are maintained to prevent flooding onthe coastal ridge as well as in the historic wetlands, which were drained. Local drainage canals and stormwater projects aregenerally the responsibility of Miami-Dade County.

New and Proposed Water Management Changes Affecting Water Flow toBiscayne BayThe Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) will restructure the regional water management system and willaffect freshwater inflows to Biscayne Bay. Design changes may be needed to provide adequate water to the Bay. The compo-nents of the CERP and other projects are briefly described in Appendix 1. Currently three project components of the CERPare specifically proposed to benefit Biscayne Bay and Biscayne National Park. They would provide additional flow to theBay, redistribute some canal flow to coastal wetlands, and replace existing freshwater flow with alternative technology. Someother components of CERP, if not revised, might decrease the groundwater flow to the Bay, reroute existing flow surfaceaway from the Bay, or redirect surface water to well fields. Further evaluation of these potential effects and efforts to improvethe Plan with respect to these effects are in progress.

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands component of the CERP is designed to redistribute water flow to the Bay. Itspurpose is to divert some canal flow to create sheet flow through coastal marshes and tidal creeks to restore estuarinefunction and provide fish and wildlife habitat. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands component is still conceptual andremains to be further developed and its engineering feasibility evaluated. This component includes stormwater treatmentareas that were designed to accommodate the treatment of canal flow. However, the currently proposed stormwater treat-ment areas may not provide enough treatment area for the reuse component. Additional water quality treatment areas maybe needed to further treat re-use water. This component is time sensitive due to the need to acquire land as a part of thisprocess.

A spreader canal from C-111N that is planned in the currently authorized C-111 Project will move water into theModel Lands/Southern Glades management area. The C-111N Spreader Canal component of CERP is proposed to enhancethis feature to reestablish the hydrologic link between the freshwater wetlands of the southeastern Everglades, which lie westof U.S. 1, and coastal fresh and saltwater wetlands upstream from Manatee Bay that lie east of U.S. 1. The CERP compo-nent consists of construction of a stormwater treatment area, enlargement of pump station S-332E, and the extension of thecanal under U.S. Highway 1 and Card Sound Road into the Model Lands. Currently, neither the volume of flow nor thecapacity of this component are adequate to restore the downstream wetlands and coastal estuaries. The benefits of theBiscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands and C-111N Spreader Canal components of CERP depend upon an adequate supply of freshwater from the regional water management system.

The third component of the CERP is South Miami-Dade County Reuse. This feature is a plant expansion of the SouthDistrict Miami-Dade Wastewater Treatment Plant to produce “superior, advanced treatment of wastewater” (CERP. 1999).This component was added late in the CERP alternative evaluation process when it was determined that other componentsof CERP would reduce water flow to Biscayne Bay. More detailed analysis is proposed to determine the quality and quantityof water needed for the Bay. In addition, due to the concerns raised over the potential quality of the water and uncertaintiesabout the technology available for this component, the CERP provided that “other potential sources of water to providerequired freshwater flows to the southern and central Biscayne Bay should be investigated before pursuing the reuse facility”(CERP, 1999). This is a key component of the process to guarantee that the Bay will receive adequate water of appropriatequality. As part of this process, additional land beyond that of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetland component may be needed


for final water treatment prior to discharge to the National Park. The land must be identified and the treatment areasdesigned to accommodate the treatment technology chosen.

Computer Models and Tools available for Biscayne BaySeveral computer models have been developed or are under development that relate to Biscayne Bay and will be used inwater management planning activities that affect the Bay. These models are listed in Appendix 2. While considerable efforthas been spent to coordinate these various modeling efforts, the resources to provide critical links between them may bemissing. Currently, the mechanism is missing to link the USGS groundwater model, which estimates groundwater flows toBiscayne Bay, to various simulation models operated by SFWMD, including the South Florida Water Management Model(SFWMM). The SFWMM is used to predict water stages and flows throughout southeast Florida under various proposedwater management alternatives. Estimates of surface water inflows to Biscayne Bay were made using the SFWMM. There is ahigh degree of uncertainty in these estimates because this model’s spatial resolution (2 miles x 2 miles) is too coarse for theelevational variation of the coastal ridge, it does not include a freshwater/saltwater interface, and estimates on its boundariesare considered less reliable. There are provisions in the implementation plan to refine estimates when higher resolutionmodels are calibrated and tested. More about the need for linkage between models will be given below.

Freshwater Inflow to Biscayne Bay:What Is Known and Not Known About its Forms,

Quantity, Distribution, Timing, and Quality

IntroductionFresh water enters Biscayne Bay as direct rainfall, surface water, and ground water. Surface water is either canal discharge oroverland flow. A discussion of what is known and what is not known about these mechanisms follows. Each discussion willaddress the mechanism as it was in pre-development conditions, as it is in the present (which includes the period of recordand is often referred to as “historic”), and as it would be under the projected scenario of alternative D13R, the current CERPalternative.

Groundwater Discharge to Biscayne BayGroundwater discharge to Biscayne Bay is affected by (1) the position of the freshwater-saltwater interface (drought history),(2) height of the water table, (3) geologic structure, including permeability and karst features, (4) canal levels, (5) watermanagement operations, and (6) sea-level fluctuations (tidal, annual, multi-annual, and longer-term). Most of our under-standing of groundwater discharges to Biscayne Bay is qualitative at best. It is reasonable to infer that present groundwaterdischarges are much less than earlier historic and pre-development discharges because the water table has been loweredsubstantially. For example, Leach et al. (1972) referred to a lowering of the water table of at least 6 ft (1.83 m) on the coastalridge. Furthermore, the saltwater intrusion line has moved inland in some locations despite the control structures and otherefforts to maintain it (Sonenshein 1997).


Freshwater springs once discharged into the Bay (Munroe and Gilpin 1966, Kohout 1966) and still do, but are lessapparent. Springs may be associated with heterogeneities in the Biscayne Aquifer, however little is known about this subject.

Kohout and Kolipinski (1967) studied the biological zonation of the benthos in relation to groundwater discharge alongthe shore of Biscayne Bay. They found a benthic association indicating the influence of groundwater into the Bay almost400 feet (121.9 meters) from the western shore in the Cutler area, immediately south of the Deering Estate, in the 1960s.

While there are no quantitative estimates of pre-drainage groundwater flow to Biscayne Bay, various written descrip-tions indicate that groundwater flow was much greater than today in the early 1900s or even the 1940s (Ferguson et al.1947, p. 65, Dupuis 1954, p. 43). An estimate of the current groundwater discharge to Biscayne Bay was established recentlythrough the development of a variable-density groundwater flow model. Results from the model, developed by the U.S.Geological Survey, suggest that current groundwater discharges to Biscayne Bay are approximately 3 to 10% of the currentcanal discharges to Biscayne Bay (Langevin, pers. comm.).

Canal discharge to Biscayne BayBoth the quantity of fresh water reaching the Bay and the quantitative information about it is much greater for surface waterthan for groundwater seepage. Flow to the Bay is primarily through canals and is controlled by gated structures. The SouthFlorida Water Management District (SFWMD) is responsible for the operation of C&SF project canals and water controlstructures, including those that discharge into Biscayne Bay. Water stage is measured automatically, and discharge quantitiesare calculated using rating curves and the upstream and downstream stage values at these structures. Surface water dischargeshave increased substantially since pre-development in order to drain interior wetlands, lower the water table, and preventflooding.

Prior to the construction of canals, surface flow to the Bay occurred as stream flow and overland flow. Little quantitativeinformation is known about river, stream, and overland flow of surface water to Biscayne Bay during pre-development times.Discharge quantities were presumably less than today. Pre-development streams, rivers, and sloughs were shallow and did notextend very far inland or penetrate much into the permeable Biscayne aquifer. The quantity of overland flow was related towater levels in the Everglades to the west. Channelization changed runoff rates and characteristics so that flow is carried offimpervious surfaces in developed areas and moved directly into the Bay. Local stormwater programs have been established tobetter address this issue, but progress will take time due to the need for proper planning and design and the difficultiesinherent in retrofitting existing development with appropriate infrastructure.

The potential effects of the CERP on freshwater flow to Biscayne Bay are uncertain because efforts to improve the planare in progress. The flows to South Biscayne Bay predicted for D13R depend upon the use of advanced-treatment wastewater(reuse), which is controversial (Bellmund et al. 1999, Alpach et al. 1999), and CERP states that “other potential sources ofwater to provide freshwater flows to the central and southern Bay will be investigated before pursuing reuse.” Predicteddischarge quantities with the 1995-base (95BSR), 2050-Base (without CERP), CERP, and all the components of CERPexcept the South-Miami Dade reuse component, are shown in Table 1. Table 1 was compiled from results presented inAppendix B, Figure B.3-87 (page 1591) of the Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study (U.S.Army Corps of Engineers 1999). The figures in Table 1 indicate the importance of reuse in CERP for reaching the target forSouth Biscayne Bay and that without reuse, there would be a reduction in wet season flow to the Bay.


Table 1. Target and model-estimated mean annual surface flow (in thousands of acre ft)

Wet Season (Jun-Oct) Dry Season (Nov-May)

Region Target 95BSR 50BSR CERP W/o* Target 95BSR 50BSR CERP W/o*

Snake Creek 67 121 114 79 79 93 51 43 26 26North Bay 99 95 97 97 41 37 38 38Miami River 132 82 42 43 60 39 18 19Central Bay 161 161 152 139 124 83 64 73 61 51South Bay 158 158 152 181 136 68 52 52 92 43*All components of CERP except South Miami-Dade reuse.

Targets in Table 1 were established by the Biscayne Bay Team of the Alternative Evaluation Team during the Compre-hensive Review Study. The wet season target for Central Bay and South Bay was set equal to the average of the 31-yr outputof 1995-Base. The dry season target was set equal to the average of the 31-yr 1995-Base output, plus 30%. The rationale forsetting the wet season target equal to 95-Base was the “no harm” philosophy that, until such time as science-based long termtargets for restoration could be established, Biscayne Bay should not be damaged by a change in the water managementsystem. The dry season target was 30% higher than 1995-Base because restoring coastal wetlands and sheet flow in theBiscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands component of the planned project will require additional water. The Snake Creek target wasset based on estimates of the flow needed to create a salinity regime favorable to oysters near the mouth of Snake Creek.

Overland Flow to Biscayne BaySignificant overland flow presently occurs only in the southern parts of Biscayne Bay and originates only from rainfall verynear the coast. A substantially larger area contributed overland flow to the Bay prior to drainage. Furthermore, overland flowwas augmented by seepage from adjacent areas of higher elevation and by water from the Everglades moving through thetransverse glades. In the past, overland flow fed tidal creeks along the southern coast (Meeder et al. 2000). On the basis ofsoil coring and paleoecological analysis in association with remnant tidal creeks, Meeder et al. (2000) found evidence of arapid change in salinity regime, with increasing salinity, in the coastal area immediately north of the Military Canal between1940 and 1992, suggesting a loss of freshwater inflow to the Bay through overland flow and coastal creeks. Based on molluskpreferences, they concluded that salinities prior to 1940 ranged from 0 to 5 ppt from the present site of the L-31E leveeeastward approximately 500 meters (which is largely scrub mangrove dominated coastal wetland habitat at present) andfrom 5 to 15 ppt nearer to the coast. They found a topographic high in place of what had appeared as a topographic low in a1940 photo and concluded that loss of freshwater inflow had caused retention of silt, the establishment of mangroves, andblockage of a natural creek that had flowed to Biscayne Bay.

Reestablishment of overland flow to coastal wetlands and Biscayne Bay will require the purchase of coastal wetlands,modification of the canal system, and land for water storage. The ability to restore this beneficial delivery of water isdependent upon public ownership of sufficient coastal wetlands.

Water QualityWater quality in the nearshore areas of Biscayne Bay may change when CERP is implemented. Restructuring the watermanagement system may result in different contributions of water to the Bay from the various source basins. Water qualitydepends largely on land use, and the different contributing basins have different land uses. Distributing water as overland


flow rather than canal flow may also affect water quality, as may the introduction of advanced-treatment reuse water. For amore complete discussion of water quality relative to Biscayne Bay, see the Water and Sediment Quality Chapter.

Significant Uncertainties and Knowledge Gaps A synthesis of information that pertains to the magnitude of pre-drainage flow is a critical need. Biscayne National Parkwants to restore its lands and waters to as nearly a pristine condition as possible. . Knowledge of pre- and post-drainagehistoric flows can provide a context in which to understand current inflows relative to past conditions. Pre-drainage fresh-water inflow will likely have to be inferred from pre-drainage salinity, however, since there is much more informationpertaining to salinity than to freshwater inflows. Biological information about the salinity tolerances and preferences ofanimals that live, or once lived, in the Bay are the primary source of information about the Bay’s past salinity. A “naturalsystem” computer model’s estimates of pre-drainage flow to the Bay are not considered reliable because predicted flows arenot only much lower than current flows but also appear unrealistically low based on other information about the pre-drainage Bay. For example, freshwater springs existed in the Bay and provided drinking water to vessels, estuarine-dependentfish species were found abundantly in the Bay in the late 1800s, and relict oyster bars occur along parts of the westernshoreline of the Bay (Meeder et al. 2000). Furthermore, an analysis of sediment cores in Manatee Bay suggests that salinityin the extreme southern part of the Bay was lower at the turn of the century than in the 1960s and less variable than today(Ishman 1999). Current conditions in Manatee Bay are characterized by extended periods with little or no discharge,sporadically interrupted by large quantities of storm water discharged via the C-111 Canal.

Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the historic discharge data maintained and distributed by theSFWMD. Recently, the USGS and SFWMD conducted a joint study of the flow ratings of 19 water-control structuresdischarging freshwater into Biscayne Bay (Swain et al. 1997). The study indicated that, in some cases, there were differencesbetween the ratings developed in this study and the ratings currently used by SFWMD to compute discharge at thesestructures. Based on 1994 discharge data, the overall computed difference in total flow volume discharged into the Bay fromall 19 structures is only 3.35% (Swain et al. 1997, p. 57). The SFWMD is looking into the possibility of implementing newratings on a case-by-case basis, but the implementation process may be delayed by the need to conduct additional studies toexamine the effects of tidal influences on flows at the coastal structures (SFWMD 2000). Refinements to discharge estimatesmay be needed to improve predictions of salinity patterns in relation to freshwater inflows in the western part of the Bay byhydrodynamic models.

The development of scientifically sound performance measures and their linkage to water management decisions iscrucial to the future well-being of Biscayne Bay and is a major activity that requires dedicated resources. A series of steps arenecessary to link freshwater inflows to salinity, water quality, and other factors affected by freshwater inflows that influencethe health and abundance of the fish, invertebrates, and other natural resources of Biscayne Bay. Linkages with salinity areparticularly important to consider because of the strong relationship between salinity and freshwater inflow—and becausesalinity affects the growth, survival, reproduction, distribution, and abundance of animals in estuaries. Needed are (1) thesalinity requirements and habitat needs of key species, communities, or processes that can be used as biological indicators;(2) predictions of salinity patterns resulting from a given quantity, timing, and distribution of freshwater inflow regime; and(3) predictions of freshwater flows for alternative water management scenarios. First, appropriate biological indicators needto be selected, then performance measures and desirable future states, or “targets”, need to be articulated with respect to theselected biological indicators. The next step is to determine the desirable salinity range, or “salinity envelope”, to supportthe biological indicators and the required location of this envelope to ensure that appropriate bottom or shoreline habitatwill be available within the salinity envelope. Once this is determined, the final step is to determine the freshwater inflowregime that will establish and maintain the desired salinity envelope in the right place. Thus definition of biological targetsleads to definition of target salinity envelopes that lead to definition of target freshwater inflows.

Development of the information and modeling tools necessary to link water management, salinity envelopes, and


biological performance measures are still in their early stages with respect to Biscayne Bay. For example, thus far, it has notbeen possible to translate changes in freshwater flow into terms meaningful to the Bay ecosystem in more than a generalsense. The salinity patterns that would result from a particular quantity and timing of freshwater inflow cannot yet bereliably predicted throughout the Bay. Salinity patterns in the western nearshore part of the Bay are expected to experiencethe greatest change, and plants and animals in this part of the Bay are expected to be the most affected by change infreshwater inflow. Yet there is too little data on the western nearshore area with which to prepare a model to predict salinitypatterns in this important area. Furthermore, the present scale of the hydrodynamic models used to predict salinity may betoo coarse to show the detail needed in the western nearshore area.

Until appropriate hydrodynamic models are developed and become operational, it will be necessary to have a shortterm, or “stop-gap”, means of predicting salinity patterns in at least the nearshore Bay as a function of freshwater inflow.Simple regression relationships such as those developed for northern Florida Bay may best fit this need. Time series ofsynoptic salinity measurements in the western nearshore area and associated and freshwater inflow records will be needed todevelop regression models.

Improvement in freshwater inflow predictive capability also is needed. The hydrologic models presently used to predictfreshwater inflows to Biscayne Bay have scale and boundary problems. Flows to Biscayne Bay under alternative watermanagement strategies were examined during the CERP development process using the South Florida Water ManagementModel (SFWMM), which has a 2 mile x 2 mile grid. Models with a finer resolution should be used to predict freshwaterflows to Biscayne Bay under alternative water management scenarios. The appropriate models or set of linked models needto be identified and further developed for this use.

Current groundwater flow models to Biscayne Bay assume diffuse flow through porous aquifer material. Historically,springs emanated from the bottom of the Bay through natural leakage channels occurring in the rock formations (Alleman1995). Thus, an unknown portion of the groundwater flow may be discharging via these springs. In order to determine theamount of freshwater discharging from springs, it is necessary to locate the springs to measure present discharge, as well assalinity and water quality characteristics. These investigations have the potential of improving existing models of groundwa-ter flow to Biscayne Bay. The steps are to locate springs, locate channels that relate to springs, and, ultimately, to quantifythe amount of discharge through channels to springs in relation to the surrounding aquifer.

One component of CERP has been proposed to recreate a more natural distribution of water to Biscayne Bay throughcoastal wetlands. Freshwater flow to Biscayne Bay will provide greater biological benefits if it is distributed along the coastand enters through coastal wetlands and tidal creeks rather than as a point source. The fresh to brackish wetland zone withinthe vegetated shoreline that will be created will provide valuable nursery habitat for estuarine fish, invertebrates, and otherwildlife. There is little opportunity to redistribute surface flow through coastal wetlands to North Biscayne Bay because theland is largely occupied by urban uses. However, an almost continuous mangrove shoreline fringe still exists from MathesonHammock Park to US 1 at Jewfish Creek. In this area there is an opportunity to redesign the surface water managementsystem to more closely mimic natural drainage patterns by redirecting some surface flows through coastal wetlands. Landnear the coast may be required to store water captured during the wet season for release to the Bay in the dry season, and/orprovide groundwater recharge. Land used for these purposes must be in public ownership or flowage easements must beacquired.

The quality of water entering Biscayne Bay may change as a result of the restructuring of the water management systemthat is planned in CERP, and water quality changes might affect the biological integrity of the Bay. An ability to predict theloads, water quality, and biological effects of change in water management is needed to protect Biscayne Bay. Predictivemodels relating flows to water quality should be developed, and biological indicators of water quality should be selected.Selections should be on the basis of presence (or potential presence) in the Bay at locations most likely to experiencechange and sensitivity to the types of water quality changes that might occur, including changes in nutrient, toxicant, orother pollutant loading.


RECOMMENDATIONSThe following section contains a number of general recommendations. Each general recommendation is followed by anexplanation, as well as a number of recommended specific projects and specific recommended management actions that areneeded with regard to the recommendation. While the specific projects, research, or actions included below are important,the lists below are not intended to be exclusive or exhaustive.

1. Review and refine estimates of predevelopment, historic, and present fresh water inflow to the Bay.

(Gaps and uncertainties in our knowledge of present and past freshwater inflows need to be resolved to more reliablydetermine the Bay’s freshwater inflow needs. Post-drainage historic flow is incomplete because groundwater and overlandflow information are lacking. A better understanding of natural, or “pre-drainage”, freshwater flow to the Bay wouldprovide perspective on Biscayne Bay’s present freshwater needs and help develop restoration targets for Biscayne NationalPark. Paleoecological approaches to identifying the salinity requirements of species that once lived in the Bay provide anobjective means of determining the Bay’s past salinity patterns; and past freshwater inflows can be inferred from salinity.)

Related Specific Scientific Recommendations:a) Conduct sediment and coral studies to determine past salinity patterns.

b) Use information about salinity tolerances and preferences of salinity dependent species, including estua-rine dependent species, known to have once occurred in Biscayne Bay, to infer past salinity conditions inthe Bay. Conduct biological studies to acquire additional information, where needed.

c) Complete finer-scale (than the 2 miles x 2 miles) and salinity interface modeling needed to evaluate watermanagement effects on freshwater flows to Biscayne Bay.

d) Reexamine changes in flows to Biscayne Bay expected from CERP (excluding the Water Reuse option)using models with finer resolution and a salinity interface capability.

e) Develop and implement a practical routine protocol for estimating direct rainfall and evaporation onBiscayne Bay and its watershed, including the addition of rainfall measurement capability to existing fixedstations in the Bay. Extend the data spatially using NEXRAD and historically using existing nearby long-term meteorological stations.

2. Characterize the chemical, biological, and physical environments in the near-shore areas of Biscayne Bay.

(The western nearshore part of the Bay is the area most subject to change in freshwater inflow and associated water quality,but little information is available on this dynamic area, partly because it is difficult to reach. More detailed knowledge of thisarea is needed to design restoration elements of CERP. Needed studies include; 1) surface and ground water flow character-ization; 2) benthic and biologic surveys, 3) detailed water quality surveys, 4) detailed topographic and bathymetric data, and4) long-term, detailed hydrodynamic studies of salinity, water movement, and water depth along the shoreline, in coastalcreeks, and within the mangrove fringe.)


a) Conduct detailed survey of substrates and benthic community types.

b) Acquire detailed long-term water level and salinity and current measurements along the coast and withinthe mangrove creeks (establish long term monitoring stations in the western nearshore area).


c) Determine spatial and temporal distribution and abundance of fish and invertebrates

d) Determine benthic flux of fresh water and water quality parameters

e) Couple an appropriate hydrodynamic model, which predicts salinity and circulation, with a model or othersuitable tool that can predict water quality and indicator species distributions

f) Continue and expand sediment studies to determine historic and pre-drainage salinity patterns, especiallyin western nearshore areas.

g) Develop a model or other appropriate tool suitable for studying the interaction of the intertidal andnearshore regions of Biscayne Bay to support design and planning of CERP’s Biscayne Bay Coastal Wet-lands component.

h) Acquire information about the western nearshore part of the Bay needed by existing hydrodynamic modelsin order to improve their resolution and accuracy in this ecologically important area, including (i) verti-cally- and horizontally-detailed topographic and bathymetric data for use in determining wetting anddrying under various tidal stages and mean, (ii) refined freshwater inflow data, and (iii) spatially detailedinformation on water level, salinity. (This is particularly important in South Biscayne Bay, where an extensive,largely continuous fringe of coastal wetlands borders the Bay south of Matheson Hammock Park.)

i) Design and establish an expanded long term monitoring network in the Bay to collect detailed salinity andwater quality information, with particular attention to the western nearshore regions and the mangrovecreeks. (Integrate and expand existing water quality/salinity monitoring network, establish long-term monitoringstations in the western nearshore area, and employ continuous recording devices to collect data wherever feasible.)

3. Identify indicator species for Biscayne Bay in terms of salinity and habitat needs to help develop targets forCERP and Minimum Flows and Levels.

( The key to establishing the freshwater needs of Biscayne Bay is to define these needs in terms of the salinity requirements ofcharacteristic species and communities and then to relate magnitude and timing of freshwater inflow to salinity patterns.Information about indicators and their requirements will provide a basis for establishing biological criteria, or performancemeasures, that will be used to evaluate how well CERP is meeting restoration objectives with respect to Biscayne Bay andhow well LECWSP is avoiding significant harm to the Bay. A scientific rationale for each selection must be provided, alongwith documentation on optimal salinity (a salinity envelope), optimal physical habitat (bottom type, bottom cover, depth,and distance from shoreline), and tolerance to salinity fluctuation.)

Related Specific Science Recommendations:a) Identification, justification, and documentation of a set of appropriate indicator species and communities

characteristic of the Bay whose distributions are likely to be influenced by changes in salinity.

b) Biologic studies on salinity and habitat requirements of juveniles of ecologically or economically importantestuarine species that would be expected to use the western nearshore Bay as a nursery ground.

4. Set restoration salinity targets and locations (i.e. wet and dry season salinity envelopes in appropriate bottom orshoreline habitat).

(Definition of the appropriate range and placement of salinity envelopes is a critical link in determining Biscayne Bay’sfreshwater inflow needs. “Salinity envelope” is a simple term referring to the combination of appropriate salinity range,fluctuation, and habitat that should exist in an estuary. Salinity envelopes have been developed by the South Florida WaterManagement District for other South Florida estuaries as a prerequisite to the necessary determination of freshwater inflowrestoration targets and minimum flows and levels.)


Related Specific Science Recommendations:a) Use the information provided by the recommended biological studies to determine the salinity ranges and

salinity fluctuations, specific to season and location, that would be appropriate to maintain key indicatorspecies. Document this information and use it as the basis for biologic and hydrologic performancemeasures and targets that can be used to evaluate regional water management alternatives and to monitorthe success of alternatives as they are implemented.

b) Determine the locations of appropriate bottom and/or shoreline habitat for the species and the appropriateplacement of the salinity envelope to ensure that desirable salinity coincides with appropriate habitat.

5. Develop flow regimes (quantity, timing, and distribution) that produce the desired salinity envelopes.

(Appropriate predictive tools to relate water management to salinity patterns are critical to protect and restore the Bay in thedetailed design stage of CERP and in setting Minimum Flows and Levels for implementation of LECRWSP. Water manage-ment for drainage and flood control has altered freshwater inflows to the Bay. CERP and LECRWSP, when implemented,will further change freshwater inflow to the Bay. These plans have an adaptive assessment process to restore, or at leastprotect, the Bay ecosystem. Their adaptive processes depend on predictive models to link the salinity requirements of keyindicator species and communities to the freshwater inflows required to maintain these salinities in the specific locationswhere other suitable habitat conditions are found.)

Related Specific Science Recommendations:a) Develop a regression or time series model to estimate salinity patterns in the western nearshore Bay as a

function of the recent history of freshwater inflow. Development of a regression or time series model willrequire the acquisition of a time series salinity data synoptic with freshwater inflow data. The record mustbe sufficiently long and varied to cover a wide range of possible freshwater inflow and salinity conditions.(The regression model will fulfill a vital function until hydrodynamic models to predict salinity patterns in thewestern nearshore Bay are operational.)

b) Couple surface water and groundwater models to a hydrodynamic model to simulate and predict salinitydistributions in response to water deliveries. The desired salinity envelopes can then be matched byadjusting freshwater inputs into the hydrodynamic model. Seasonal and year-to-year variations of freshwa-ter inputs should be simulated in the coupled model.

c) Review and improve appropriate hydrodynamic models of the Bay and integrate them with ground andsurface water models that can provide appropriate and accurate watershed boundary conditions. Seasonaland year-to-year variations of freshwater inputs should be simulated with the coupled model. Continue toimprove the performance and resolution of the coupled surface water-groundwater-hydrodynamic modelusing data from the expanded monitoring network.

d) When operational, use the model to determine the quantity, timing, and distribution of flows (or refineestimates of flow provided by regression or time series models) required to maintain the salinity envelope(i.e., target salinity range) in areas of suitable bottom and/or shoreline habitat.

e) Apply performance measures to evaluate existing conditions in the Bay (baseline measurement), to testand compare proposed new managed inflow regimes, and to evaluate progress toward meeting biologicaland salinity targets. Define measurable success realistically (allowing for occasional departures from salinityenvelopes).


f) Apply performance measures and targets to establish Minimum Flows and Levels for Biscayne Bay toensure that significant harm from lack of freshwater inflow will not be experienced in any part of the Bay,including extreme southern areas (i.e., Card Sound, Little Card Sound, Barnes Sound, Manatee Bay) thatare of particular concern because they are at the most downstream end of the water management system.

6. Identify and acquire additional coastal lands necessary for flow redistribution.

(Freshwater flow to Biscayne Bay will provide greater biological benefits if it enters through coastal wetlands and tidal creeksrather than as a point source because the fresh to brackish wetland zone provides essential nursery and feeding habitat forestuarine fish, invertebrates, and other wildlife. An almost continuous mangrove shoreline fringe exists from MathesonHammock Park to US 1 at Jewfish Creek that provides an opportunity to redirect some canal flows through coastal wet-lands. Land near the coast may be required to store water captured during the wet season for release to the Bay in the dryseason, and/or provide groundwater recharge. Land used for these purposes must be in public ownership or flowage ease-ments must be acquired.)

Related Specific Science-generated Management and Action Recommendations:

a) Assess land needs for flow redistribution and other restoration projects.

b) Assign the highest priority for public acquisition to needed parcels and move to acquire them immediately.

7. Develop the capability to predict water quality changes and resultant effects on the Bay’s biological integritythat might occur with proposed water management changes.

(An ability to predict the loads, water quality, and biological effects of change in water management is needed to protectBiscayne Bay. Predictive models or other appropriate tools relating flows to water quality should be developed, and potentialbiological indicators of water quality should be selected. Selections should be on the basis of presence (or potential presence)in the Bay at locations most likely to experience change and sensitivity to the types of water quality changes that might occur,including changes in nutrient, toxicant, or other pollutant loading.)


a) Develop a model or other appropriate water quality tool to predict loading of nutrients, toxicants, andother pollutants to the Bay as a function of water management.

b) Develop, test, and verify a water quality model or other appropriate water quality tool that can be linkedto the hydrodynamic model and receive input from the loading model to predict the effects of watermanagement changes on water and sediment quality in the Bay.

c) Develop and document water quality indicators and performance measurs that can be used to evaluateeffects of water management changes on the biological integrity of the Bay. Emphasis should be on the useof biological indicators that are sensitive to change in water quality.

8. Determine the importance of fresh water springs to the quantity and distribution of freshwater inflow toBiscayne Bay, past, present, and future.

(Historically, springs emanated from the bottom of the Bay through natural leakage channels occurring in the rock forma-tions. An unknown portion of the groundwater flow may be discharging via these springs and their existence may affectpredictions of groundwater flow by existing models. A series of projects are suggested to provide an indication of the signifi-cance of spring discharge to groundwaterflow to Biscayne Bay and to evaluate whether existing groundwater models can beimproved by the acquisition of further information on springs in the Bay and associated channels in the aquifer. The steps areto locate springs, locate channels that relate to springs, and quantify the amount of discharge from these in relation to thesurrounding aquifer.)


Related Specific Science Recommendations:a) Interview fishermen and other knowledgeable locals regarding the existence of springs in the bay.

b) To locate possible channels within the aquifer, measure tidal propagation inland by comparing fluctuationin the water table or pieziometric surface in a series of groundwater monitoring wells at the same distancefrom the coastline with tidal amplitude in adjacent coastal waters. Wells with substantially higher ratios ofsurface fluctuation to tidal amplitude will indicate sites of greater permeability and higher rates of ground-water flow to the coast.

c) Conduct studies such as airborne thermal infrared surveys or resistivity surveys to locate springs within theBay. Special emphasis should be placed on opportunistic sampling after high rainfall events.

d) Once located, install seepage meters on the springs to measure the flow and sample the discharged water todetermine its salinity and other water quality parameters of interest.

e) Locate the inland points of recharge to investigate the possibly of maintaining higher ground water levelsin those areas to promote spring discharge and also identifying and controlling potential sources ofpollution.

ConclusionMuch of Biscayne Bay is in very good condition because of the large number of restoration projects and protective measuresthat have occurred over the past 20-30 years. However there is still considerable room for improvement when it comes tohydrological restoration. Some areas have been irretrievably altered from pristine conditions due to the changes in freshwater deliveries and cuts in the barrier islands, which have increased ocean flushing. In areas such as South Biscayne Bay,where some coastal wetlands remain, there are opportunities to change the quantity, timing, and distribution of flows tocreate salinity patterns that approach pristine conditions. Specifically, it may be possible to reestablish a relatively stable lowsalinity zone along the western boundary of the bay needed for the development of many salt-tolerant freshwater andjuvenile estuarine-dependent species. Restoration goals and performance measures are needed immediately to evaluateCERP and other watershed planning processes already underway. Highest priority should be given to the following:

Priority Related Specific Science Recommendations:

a) Conduct studies to determine the magnitude and ecological ramifications of changes in and redistributionof freshwater inflows to Biscayne Bay.

b) Establish hydrologic, biological, and water quality indicators, benchmarks, and targets based on biologicalneeds and historic and pre-drainage conditions to help establish minimum flows and levels for LECWSPand to provide design criteria and performance measures for CERP.

c) Determine the appropriate redistribution of water to restore fresh to brackish water wetlands and providesustained freshwater flows along the western shoreline of South Biscayne Bay.

d) Review, refine, and integrate hydrologic and hydrodynamic models so that realistic predictions of freshwa-ter flows to the Bay and resultant salinity patterns under different water management scenarios can becompared.

e) Provide a baseline of current conditions for comparison with post project monitoring.


Priority Specific Science-generated Management and Action Recommendations:a) Redistribute point source canal discharges to sheetflow and natural creek systems. This includes the

identification and purchase of needed lands.

b) Provide flexibility to the water management system to allow storage of wet season water excess to provideneeded dry season flows.

c) Support the rapid development of restoration targets based on pristine and historic conditions andbiological indicators.

d) Determine how best to redistribute water in the Biscayne Coastal Wetlands Component.

REFERENCESAlleman, R. W., S. A. Bellmund, D. W. Black, S. E. Formati, C. A. Gove, and L. K. Gulick. 1995. Biscayne Bay Surface

Water Improvement and Management Plan Technical Supporting Document. South Florida Water ManagementDistrict, West Palm Beach, Florida.

Alspach, S., S. Bellmund, and J. Browder. 1999. Issue paper on reuse for the Alternative Evaluation Team. Vol. 2, Annex A– Coordination Act Report. Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study. U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Jacksonville, Florida.

Bellmund, S., J. Browder, and S. Alspach. 1999. Issue paper on freshwater flows to Biscayne Bay for the Alternative Evalua-tion Team. Vol. 2, Annex A – Coordination Act Report. Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive ReviewStudy. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida.

Chow, V. T. 1964. Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw Hill. New York.

Cooper R. and J. Lane. 1987. An Atlas of Surface water of Eastern Dade County. South Florida Water Management District.West Palm Beach, Florida.

Dancy, J. M. 1884. [Report of James M. Dancy, appointed to examine the Southern or Caloosahatchee Division of theDrainage District]. In: Minutes of Nov. 26, 1884, Meeting. Vol. III (1904), p. 314-323. Trustees of the Internal Improve-ment Fund, Tallahassee, Florida.

DuPuis, Dr. John Gordon. 1954. History of early medicine in Dade County, Florida. Publ. Privately by the author, Miami.140 pp.

Duval, H. S. 1884. [Report of H. S. Duval, State Engineer, with appendix showing the townships reclaimed by the drainageoperations of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast Canal and Okeechobee Land Company] In: Minutes of Aug. 19, 1884,Meeting. Vol. III (1904), p. 314-323. Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, Tallahassee.

Ferguson, G. E., C. W. Lingham, S. K. Loe, and R. O. Vernon. 1947. Springs of Florida. Florida Geological Survey Bull. 31.Tallahassee.

Ishman, S. E., T. M. Cronin, G. L. Brewster-Wingard, D. A. Willard, and D. J. Verardo. 1998. Record of ecosystem change,Manatee Bay, Barnes Sound, Florida. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue 26:125-138.

Kohout, F. A. 1966. Submarine springs: a neglected phenomenon of coastal hydrology. Central Treaty Organization’ssymposium on Hydrology and Water Resources Development, 5-12 February, 1966. U.S. Geological Survey.


Kohout, F. A. and M. C. Kolipinski. 1967. Biological zonation related to groundwater discharge along the shore of BiscayneBay, Miami Florida: Estuaries. Am. Association for the Adv. Sci. Publ. No. 83. Pp. 488-499.

Meeder, J. F., P. W. Harlem, M. S. Ross, E. Gaiser, and R. Jaffe. 2000. Southern Biscayne Bay watershed historic creekcharacterization. Annual Report to the South Florida Water Management District. Southeast Environmental ResearchCenter, Florida International University, Miami, Florida. 15 p.

Munroe, R. M. and V. Gilpin. 1966. The Commodore’s Story. Historical Association of Southern Florida. Miami, Florida.(Reprinting of the 1930 edition.)

Parker, G. G. and C. W. Cooke. 1944. Late Cenozoic Geology of Southern Florida, with a Discussion of the Ground Water.Florida Department of Consrvation Geological Bulletin No. 27. Tallahasee, Florida.

Sonenshein, R. S. 1997. Delineation and Extent of Saltwater Intrusion in the Biscayne Aquifer, Eastern Dade County,Florida, 1995. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4285.

South Florida Water Management District. September 21, 2000, memo. On the Biscayne Bay Partnership Initiative ScienceSurvey Team Working Group Draft Report (September 20, 2000, Draft) and the USGS/District discharge ratings forcoastal structures in Dade County.

Swain, F. D., A. Kapadia, S. Kone, E. Damisse, D. Mtundu, and G. N. Tillis. 1997. Determining Discharge-CoefficientRatings for Coastal Structures in Dade County, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report97-4079.


APPENDIX 1Major Studies, Plans, And Projects That Will Affect Biscayne BayComprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP)CERP will have many components that affect surface water flows to Biscayne Bay. These components, by their operationand structural design, are intended to provide more water for the Central and Southern Florida Project. The CERP compo-nents most directly associated with Biscayne Bay are the C-111N Spreader Canal, South Miami-Dade County Reuse, andthe Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands. Other components of CERP, especially the Lake-Belt Water Storage Components andthe East-Coast-Protective-Levee Seepage Control Component, (not a specific component of CERP. Is this the L-31N LeveeSeepage Management?)will affect the timing and quantity of water received by Biscayne Bay. Finally, the Restoration andCoordination and Verification (RECOVER) process of CERP will apply scientific knowledge about the system to theselection of indicators, the formulation of performance measures, and modeling and monitoring of these measures toevaluate the performance of the Plan with respect to Biscayne Bay, other natural systems, and human systems. Results ofevaluations will be used to improve the Plan.

C-111N Spreader CanalThe C-111N Spreader Canal feature includes levees, canals, pumps, water control structures, and a stormwater treatmentarea to be constructed, modified or removed in the Model Lands and Southern Glades (C-111 Basin) area of Miami-DadeCounty. This feature enhances the C-111 Project design for the C-111N Spreader Canal with the construction of astormwater treatment area, the enlarging of pump station S-332E and the extension of the canal under U.S. Highway 1 andCard Sound Road into the Model Lands. The initial design of this feature pumps water from the C-111 and the C-111ECanals into a stormwater treatment area prior to discharging to Southern Everglades and Model Lands. This features alsocalls for filling in the southern reach of the C-111 Canal and removal of structures S-18C and S-197. The final size, depth,location and configuration of this feature will be determined through more detailed planning and design.

The purpose of this feature is to improve deliveries and enhance the connectivity and sheetflow in the Model Lands andSouthern Glades areas, reduce wet season flows in C-111, and decrease potential flood risk in the lower south Miami-DadeCounty area.

Biscayne Bay Coastal WetlandsThe Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands feature includes pump stations, spreader swales, stormwater treatment areas, flowways,levees, culverts, and backfilling canals located in southeast Miami-Dade County and covers 13,600 acres from the DeeringEstate at C-100C, south to the Florida Power and Light Turkey Point power plant, generally along L-31E.

The purpose of this feature is to rehydrate wetlands and reduce point source discharge to Biscayne Bay. The proposedproject will replace lost overland flow and partially compensate for the reduction in groundwater seepage by redistributing,through a spreader system, available surface water entering the area from regional canals. The proposed redistribution offreshwater flow across a broad front is expected to restore or enhance freshwater wetlands, tidal wetlands, and nearshore bayhabitat. Sustained lower-than-seawater salinities are required in tidal wetlands and the nearshore bay to provide nurseryhabitat for fish and shellfish. This project is expected to create conditions that will be conducive to the reestablishment ofoysters and other components of the oyster reef community. Diversion of canal discharges into coastal wetlands is expected


not only to reestablish productive nursery habitat all along the shoreline but also to reduce the abrupt freshwater dischargesthat are physiologically stressful to fish and benthic invertebrates in the bay near canal outlets.

More detailed analyses will be required to define target freshwater flows for Biscayne Bay and the wetlands within theredistribution system. The target(s) will be based upon the quality, quantity, timing and distribution of flows needed toprovide and maintain sustainable biological communities in Biscayne Bay, Biscayne National Park and the coastal wetlands.Additionally, potential sources of water for providing freshwater flows to Biscayne Bay will be identified and evaluated todetermine their ability to provide the target flows.

The component Biscayne Bay Coastal Canals as modeled in D-13R and the Critical Project on the L-31E FlowwayRedistribution are smaller components of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands feature described above.

South Miami-Dade County Reuse

The South Miami-Dade County Reuse feature includes a plant expansion to produce superior, advanced treatment ofwastewater from the existing South District Wastewater Treatment Plant located north of the C-1 Canal in Miami-DadeCounty. The initial design of this feature assumed that the plant will have a capacity of 131 million gallons per day. Moredetailed analyses will be required to determine the quality and quantity of water needed to meet the ecological goals andobjectives of Biscayne Bay. Additionally, due to the water quality issues associated with discharging reclaimed water intoBiscayne National Park, an Outstanding Florida Water, such as potential failures of the treatment system and the limitedability to control contaminant inputs to the sanitary sewer system serving the treatment facility, other potential sources ofwater to provide required freshwater flows to southern and central Biscayne Bay should be investigated before pursuing thereuse facility as a source. If it is determined that other, more appropriate sources are not available, the reuse project will beinitiated by determining the parameters of concern, the necessary wastewater treatment requirements, and the appropriatetreatment technology to be implemented.

The purpose of this feature is to provide additional water supply to the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands component. Inorder to attain the superior level of treatment, construction of an add-on pretreatment and membrane treatment system tothe existing secondary treatment facility will be necessary. Superior water quality treatment features will be based onappropriate pollution load reduction targets necessary to protect downstream receiving surface waters (Biscayne Bay).

Biscayne Bay Feasibility Study

The Biscayne Bay study began in the early 1980’s with the completion of the reconnaissance report in March 1984. Feasibil-ity phase studies were initiated in 1984, but funding was discontinued in 1985. The study was reactivated in 1994, but due tothe lapse of time with a new set of priorities and concerns, an updated reconnaissance study was undertaken. The BiscayneBay Florida Updated Reconnaissance Report completed in July 1995 recommended developing and operating a hydrody-namic simulation model, in addition to other ecosystem models of Biscayne Bay. The circulation, or hydrodynamics, of thesystem are critical to the understanding of many other issues such as water quality, sediment transport, and biologicalprocesses.

As part of the updated reconnaissance study, a project study plan was developed which addresses modeling purpose,scope, development priorities, linkages, data collection, research requirements, methods and costs. Three phases of modeldevelopment were proposed.

• Phase 1 addresses the creation of a hydrodynamic model and associated ground water and surface water model ofthe Biscayne Bay study area.

• Phase 2 addresses the creation of a water quality model of Biscayne Bay.


• Phase 3 addresses the creation of a biological model, including plant and animal communities of Biscayne Bay.

Currently, the feasibility study is in the phase 1, and is scheduled to be completed in 2001.

L-31N Seepage Management – Pilot ProjectThe purpose of this feature is to reduce levee seepage flow across L-31N adjacent to Everglades National Park via a leveecutoff wall. Additionally, the feature was designed to reduce groundwater flows during the wet season by capturing ground-water flows with a series of groundwater wells adjacent to L-31N, then backpumping those flows to Everglades NationalPark. The pilot project is necessary to determine the appropriate technology to control seepage from Everglades NationalPark. The pilot project will also provide necessary information to determine the appropriate amount of wet season ground-water flow to return that will minimize potential impacts to Miami-Dade County’s West Wellfield and freshwater flows toBiscayne Bay.

Wastewater Reuse Technology – Pilot ProjectCurrently, two features involve the advanced treatment of wastewater in CERP. This pilot project will address water qualityissues associated with discharging reclaimed water into natural areas such as the West Palm Beach Water Catchment Area,Biscayne National Park, and the Bird Drive Basin, as well as determine the level of superior treatment and the appropriatemethodologies for that treatment. A series of studies will be conducted to help determine the level of treatment needed.

Pilot facilities will be constructed to determine the ecological effects of using superior, advanced treated reuse water toreplace and augment freshwater flows to Biscayne Bay and to determine the level of superior, advanced treatment required toprevent degradation of freshwater and estuarine wetlands and Biscayne Bay. The constituents of concern in wastewater willbe identified and the ability of superior, advanced treatment to remove those constituents will be determined.

Restoration Coordination and Verification (RECOVER)A Restoration Coordination and Verification (RECOVER) process has been established under the Comprehensive Ever-glades Restoration Plan to organize and apply scientific and technical information to help CERP achieve its objectives.Multi-disciplinary and interagency teams of scientists assigned to CERP by state, federal, and local governments willevaluate and assess Plan performance, recommend refinements and improvements to the Plan during the implementationperiod, review the effects of other restoration projects, and ensure that a system-wide perspective is maintained. TheRECOVER teams are responsible for coordination of an Applied Science Strategy, components of which are conceptualecological models, performance measures with restoration targets, and a system-wide monitoring and research program.Recommendations for refinements and improvements to the Plan or requests for assistance in resolving conflicting issueswill be submitted to the Design Coordination Team, which determines structural or operational criteria changes needed torefine the Comprehensive Plan. RECOVER is made up of five teams, led by a leadership group that sets priorities, makesbudget recommendations, issues an annual report card, and refines the overall vision of success of the Plan as knowledgeabout the system increases.

ProjectsC-111 ProjectThe C-111 Project, as recommended in the Corps’ General Reevaluation Report dated May 1994, will create the opera-tional capability and flexibility to provide restoration of the ecological integrity of Taylor Slough and the eastern panhandleareas of the Everglades and maintain flood protection to the agricultural interests adjacent to C-111.


The C-111 Project will protect the natural values of a portion of Everglades National Park, and will maintain flooddamage prevention within the C-111 Basin, east of L-31N and C-111. Structural modifications of the project consist of theconstruction or modification of nine canals, several levees, construction of five pump stations, and replacement of theexisting bridge over Taylor Slough within Everglades National Park. Non-structural components include acquisition of over11,866 acres of land, including the Frog Pond and Rocky Glades. The project will restore the hydrology in 128 square milesof Taylor Slough and its headwaters in the Rocky Glades. In addition, the hydroperiod and depths in 1,027 square miles ofShark River Slough are beneficially impacted by the higher stages in the Rocky Glades, resulting in a net increase in watervolume within Shark River Slough. The project will provide adequate operational flexibility to incorporate managementstrategies that will evolve as a result of continued monitoring and studies.

The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (WRDA 96) authorized 50/50 Fed/Local cost sharing for the totalproject cost, which included providing credit for all lands needed for the project. It also authorized Federal cost sharing forany water quality features required for project implementation. Jacksonville District is working closely with the SouthFlorida Water Management District, Everglades National Park, Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Department of Environ-mental Protection and others to define water quality concerns and develop appropriate water treatment features. A Supple-ment to the C-111 GRR is now being prepared to identify potential water quality concerns, update project cost estimatesand revise project cost sharing in accordance with WRDA 96 guidance.

Modified Water Deliveries To Everglades National ParkThe Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park Project was authorized by the Everglades National Park Protec-tion and Expansion Act (Public Law 101-229). The purpose of the project is to provide for structural modifications to theC&SF Project to enable the restoration of more natural water flows to Shark River Slough in Everglades National Park. Theproject is being implemented by the Corps in conjunction with the acquisition of about 107,600 acres of land by theDepartment of Interior. Land acquisition for the levee, canal, and pump station for the flood mitigation system in the 8.5-square-mile area is underway.

This project is presently in the design and construction phase. Project construction is scheduled for completion in 2003.The Modified Water Deliveries Project will provide more natural flows to Shark River Slough in Everglades National Park.Water flows will be spread across a broader section of Shark River Slough to include the East Everglades between L-67Extension and L-31N.

The addition of water control structures and culverts in L-67 A and C will help to reestablish the natural distribution ofwater from Water Conservation Area 3A into Water Conservation Area 3B. Outlets from Water Conservation Area 3B(S-355A & B) have been constructed to discharge into Northeast Shark River Slough. An existing levee and canal (L-67Extension) along the eastern edge of the existing Everglades National Park boundary will also be removed. A MiccosukeeIndian camp has been flood-proofed to avoid periodic flooding that would otherwise be caused by the project.

In order to prevent adverse flood impacts to the 8.5-square-mile residential area, the authorized project includes theconstruction of a seepage levee and canal around the western and northern edges of the area and a pump station (S-357) toremove excess seepage water. These project features are designed to maintain the existing level of flood protection in theresidential area after the Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park project returns water levels in NortheastShark Slough to higher levels. A second pump station (S-356) will be constructed to pump excess seepage water from theL-31N borrow canal and residential area into the L-29 borrow canal. This water will then flow through culverts or bridgesunder US Highway 41 into Northeast Shark River Slough. A new Federal plan that would modify the project features in the8.5-square-mile area by changing the alignment of the seepage canal and levee system, along with the pump station S357location, is currently under consideration. The new Federal plan will direct the water south into the C-111 project area.

The structural modifications were designed to provide for maximum operational flexibility so that as more is learnedthrough the continued iterative testing program, the operation of the project can be adjusted accordingly.


Appendix 2Biscayne Bay and Related Watershed ModelsModel Name: Biscayne Bay Hydrodynamic Model Phase IDevelopers: USACE-WESPrimary purpose: Hydrodynamic and salinity modeling in Biscayne BayPrimary Contacts: Mitch Granat, Technical Leader USACE (904) 232-1839

Gary Brown, Modeler WES (601) 634-4417Matt Davis, Project Manager SFWMD (305) 377-724Gwen Burzycki, Project Manager DERM (305) 372-6789

Model Name: DERM Storm Water ModelDevelopers: DERMPrimary purpose: Stormwater and flood modelingPrimary Contacts: Dorian Valdez, Project Manager DERM (305) 372-6886

Victor Martin, Modeler DERM (305) 372-6992Murry Miller, Project Manager SFWMD (305) 377-7234

Model Name: Groundwater discharge to Biscayne Bay modelDevelopers: USGSPrimary purpose: Simulation of groundwater discharge to Biscayne bayPrimary Contacts: Chris Langevin, USGS 305-717-5817Model Name: South Biscayne Bay HydrodynamicDevelopers: John D. Wang, Applied Marine Physics, RSMAS, Univ. of MiamiPrimary purpose: Salinity and flow modeling in Biscayne Bay due to tides, wind, and freshwater input. Possible

Uses: Determination of salinity patterns and changes due to fresh water input. Hindcast/nowcast/forecast fate and transport of suspended or dissolved matter.

Primary Contacts: Dr. John Wang, Professor RSMAS (305) 361-4648

Model Name: North Biscayne Bay HydrodynamicDevelopers: John D. Wang, Applied Marine Physics, RSMAS, Univ. of MiamiPrimary purpose: Flow modeling in North Biscayne Bay due to tides, wind, and freshwater input.Primary Contacts: Dr. John Wang, Professor RSMAS (305) 361-4648Model Name: South Miami-Dade County ground water flow model.Developers: Florida Atlantic Universities, in cooperation with SFWMD.Primary purpose: To support the Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan. It models ground water and wetland flow. It

also looks at ground water quarry interaction.Primary Contacts: Jorge Restrepo, FAU, (561) 297-2795

Angela Montoya, SFWMD, (561) 682-2002Emily Hopkins, SFWMD, (561) 682-2002


Model Name: South Florida Water Management ModelDevelopers: SFWMDPrimary purpose: Simulating response to different regional water management strategiesPrimary Contacts: Jayantha Obeysekera, SFWMD, 561-687-6503

Ray Santee, SFWMD, 561-682-6508Ken Tarboton, SFWMD, 561-682-6017Luis Cadavid, SFWMD, 561-682-6555

Model Name: North Miami-Dade County ground water flow model. Also known as version 3.0 of the LakeBelt ground water flow model.

Developers: SFWMDPrimary purpose: To support the Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan, and the Water Preserve Area Analyses for

the CERP. It models groundwater and wetland flow. It also looks at ground water quarry interac-tion.

Primary Contacts: Mark Wilsnack, SFWMD, (561) 682-6713Jayantha Obeysekera, SFWMD, (561) 682-6503Dave Welter, SFWMD, (561) 682-6707

Model Name: Integrated Wetlands Treatment ModelDevelopers: University of Florida, in cooperation with SFWMD.Primary purpose: Simulates the space and time dynamics of surface and shallow ground water hydrology and water

quality. Used to simulate effects of spatial land use configurations, development intensities, andwetland network arrangements. Initially developed for rapidly-urbanizing sub-basins.

Primary Contacts: Dr. M.T. Brown, University of Florida (352) 392-2309Matt Davis, SFWMD (305) 377-7274 ext. 7223

Coupling Biscayne Bay’s Natural Resources and Fisheries to Environmental Quality and Freshwater Inflow Management163

Coupling Biscayne Bay’s Natural Resources andFisheries to Environmental Quality and Freshwater

Inflow Management

Co-chairs:

Joseph E. Serafy and Jerald S. Ault

Authors:

Joseph E. Serafy, Jerald S. Ault, Peter Ortner, and Richard Curry

Contributors:

Joan A. Browder, Michael Schmale


Problem BackgroundBiscayne Bay is a unique tropical coastal marine ecosystem renown for its diverse and abundant natural resources and scenicbeauty. The Bay contributes to the multibillion dollar tourism and fishing industry in South Florida by providing criticalnursery and feeding habitats for many important commercial and recreational fishery resources as well as other ecologicallyimportant species. The production dynamics of many natural resources in Biscayne Bay are inextricably linked to the qualityof bay waters and habitats, which have been greatly affected by growing human uses and management practices. For ex-ample, many reef fish and invertebrate species use the Bay as a nursery ground. The Bay’s resources are intimately related tothe broader regional ecosystem through water movements and animal migrations, and any degradation to the Bay hasconsequences well beyond its inshore boundaries.

Biscayne Bay, as well as the south Florida coastal ocean ecosystem (e.g., Florida Keys and Florida Bay), has undergonedramatic environmental changes due to a century of extensive regional population growth that accelerated coastal andwatershed development, habitat degradation/loss and pollution. Overall, there has been significant erosion of the Bay’sestuarine functionality in the regional ecosystem. In the past, freshwater and brackish marsh habitats bordered most of theBay’s perimeter (Romans 1775; Smith 1896), but over the last century, western shorelines of the Bay and eastern barrierislands have undergone extensive loss of herbaceous marsh and mangroves. Biscayne Bay north of Rickenbacker Causeway isnow a highly modulated coastal bay environment affected by more than 100 years of significant habitat destruction, devel-opment, and dredging. The area receives contaminants, sewage and disturbance due to its proximity to the influences ofMiami and a steadily growing human population of several million along its coastline (see Water and Sediment Qualityworking group report). Despite this, some parts of the northern Bay remain highly productive (e.g., the basin between JuliaTuttle and 79th St. Causeways; Berkley and Campos 1984) and in recent years water quality has been improved throughregulatory action. Much of the southern Bay, despite substantial coastal development, has retained its relatively pristinehabitats, good water quality, and supports significant production of economically-important fish and shellfish, althoughfluctuating salinity due to water management practices continues to be a problem.

The western Bay was heavily impacted by the construction of 19 water management canals that drained wetlands andnow release water in pulses to prevent intermittent coastal flooding and facilitate agriculture. The result is a highly modifieddelivery of fresh waters to the Bay that results in widely fluctuating salinity regimes. Consequently, many estuarine fishes andshellfish, typified by the larger drum species and oysters, have precipitously declined in abundance due to the reduction orelimination of once extensive freshwater and brackish habitats.

Abrupt canal-driven salinity fluctuations represent a stress on plant and animal communities; these have been shown toreduce growth of aquatic plants (Montague & Ley 1993) and lower animal diversity (Brook 1982, Serafy et al. 1997). Suchsalinity variations are not conducive for estuarine species. For example, the State of Florida’s Florida Marine ResearchInstitute, attempted to re-establish a fishery for the estuarine red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) in Biscayne Bay. This species was“abundant in all seasons” during the late 19th Century (Smith 1896, FMRI 1996) when brackish marsh habitats existed, butvirtually disappeared from the Bay by the late 1950s. Over a ten-year period, over 1.5 million red drum juveniles werereleased at 12 locations from near the Oleta River State Recreation Area to Card Sound (Serafy et al. 1999). However, thiseffort was largely unsuccessful, because juveniles were released into an environment that no longer contained suitable (i.e.,consistently brackish) estuarine habitats (Serafy et al. 1996). On the other hand, the Bay’s commercial blue crab fishery hasbeen concentrated for at least 15 years in one of the areas most impacted by canal-driven salinity pulses (i.e., between BlackPoint and Turkey Point). This is consistent with the known tolerance of adults to large variations in salinity (Hill et al.1989), however, the pattern of generally low densities of juveniles observed by Berkeley and Campos (1984) in the south-western Bay may reflect poor growth and/or survival of early life stages at salinities below 20 ppt (Van Heukelem 1991). Ifimproved estuarine conditions can be achieved along the Bay’s southwestern shoreline we would de facto expect a decreasein reef fish abundance and diversity in that part of the bay, but there may be net benefits to other fisheries resources. It is


possible that improved delivery of fresh water, in the form of consistent sheet and groundwater flow, would result in astabilized salinity regime that would benefit larval recruitment dependent upon salinity or olfactory gradients as a directionalcue and perhaps provide a more consistent support base for juvenile and adult blue crabs.

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Component (BBCWC) is a component of the Comprehensive Everglades Restora-tion Plan (CERP) which is intended to ameliorate the pulsed, point-source, fresh water delivery problem along the Bay’ssouthwestern shore (possibly from Deering Estate to Turkey Point). The intent is to re-hydrate coastal wetlands that are nowdrained by the canal system, and redistribute freshwater flow to the Bay across a broad front by means of pump stations,spreader swales, culverts, and other means. If adequate water is provided by the regional system, this component is expectedto result in nearshore areas with more consistently brackish salinities for much of the year, which should provide better andmore stable conditions for estuarine species to complete their life cycles.

This and other hydrologic programs of historical proportions are planned for south Florida as part of the Evergladesrestoration. These efforts will further change the timing, location and volume of freshwater inflows to Biscayne Bay, andlikely change pollutant and nutrient loading, all of which will likely have substantial water quality and food web effects.Unfortunately, not enough is known about the current extent to which fishery and other natural resources are stressed due toalterations in freshwater flows. This is important information needed to more accurately evaluate the potential effects ofproposed projects.

Physical alterations to Biscayne Bay have also substantially changed habitat quality in parts of the Bay. Harbor dredgingprojects to support an enormous growth of the shipping and cruise liner fleets serving the Caribbean, Central and SouthAmerica, and Africa have been associated with degraded water quality and destruction of essential habitats. Substantialbeach re-nourishment projects on Miami Beach and Key Biscayne are regularly conducted to support the tourism industry,but Lindeman and Snyder (1999) have shown the resultant turbidity, siltation, and destruction of habitats from theserestoration activities can be deleterious to fishery resources.

Commercial and recreational fishing are thought to have contributed substantially to resource change in Biscayne Bay(Harper et al. in review). The Bay’s resources have been exploited seasonally from the late 1700s by a migrant fishing fleetbased in Gloucester, Massachusetts, and even earlier by the Tequesta Indians. Pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum) is themost important species (by weight) in the Bay’s commercial and recreational fisheries (Berkeley and Campos 1984). In thepast 10 years a recreational fleet of shrimp “fly-netters” has rapidly grown during winter months representing additionalfishing pressure on a resource already exploited by a large number of shoreline and bridge netters as well as the current 20-30vessel, commercial live-bait rollerframe trawlers. The commercial live bait shrimp fleet damages hardbottom communities(evidence of breakage 12% to 38% above background levels) (Ault et al. 1997b) and also has a considerable fish bycatch(Berkeley et al. 1985). Berkeley et al. (1985) estimated that more than 20% Biscayne Bay’s bottom is swept at least fourtimes annually by this fleet.

The cumulative stress on natural resources is reflected in the dynamics of pink shrimp for which the interrelation amonglife history, habitats, and salinity regimes has received recent attention (Ault et al. 1999a). Pink shrimp is a keystone speciesthat converts seagrass and macro-algal primary production into protein actively sought by a host of juvenile and adultmarine predators, including man. Pink shrimp juveniles occupy a key trophic position in the estuarine ecosystem as aprimary food source for juveniles of important food fishes, including many coral reef species that have an inshore juvenilephase (e.g., gray snapper). Adult and juvenile life stages are segregated spatially, a common feature of tropical penaeidspecies and many fish species. Adult shrimp reside in the soft bottoms of offshore shelf regions where they support intenseand lucrative food fisheries. Major U.S. fishing grounds are located in the Dry Tortugas off southwestern Florida, and theAtlantic coastal ocean off northeastern Florida and North Carolina. Juvenile pink shrimp inhabit coastal bays and estuariesand have important nursery areas located along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of Florida and the Atlantic coasts of Georgiaand the Carolinas. In Biscayne Bay, juvenile pink shrimp are found in sufficient numbers to support a live bait fishery.Increasing fishing effort on large adult reef fishes, e.g., snappers, groupers, etc., fuels an increasing demand for juvenile pinkshrimp as bait, which in turn may actually reduce the available food base for pre-recruit juveniles of many of the fishery-


targeted reef species. Thus, sustainability of important south Florida reef fishes and sustainability of pink shrimp in the Baysare interrelated. However, much has still to be learned about the specific trophodynamic pathways of primary-to-secondaryproduction in Biscayne Bay.

Other near-term threats to the integrity, function and dynamics of Biscayne Bay fisheries and natural resources includeland use changes in the watershed that affect water quality and water management practices.

The Information Base for Decision-MakingAs a starting point for improved management decision-making, we must take stock of what information is at hand. Thequantity of fresh water from the flood control canals that flow into the southern portion of the Bay is reasonably known.Comparatively less is known about freshwater inputs, mass transport and circulation north of Rickenbacker Causeway andthe connectivity to the expansive southern portion of the Bay. Very little information exists on the amount, location andquality of groundwater that currently flows into Biscayne Bay, nor are there reliable estimates of what it was historically. Inthe past, Biscayne Bay was more estuarine in character, whereas today it can be described as a freshwater-pulsed marinelagoon. We are also uncertain about the quantity and quality of sheet flow, changes in inflows due to stormwater dischargeand groundwater that currently enter the Bay. There are no solid data to quantify the historical change in groundwater,sheet flow or rain, nor how much of this reduced input is compensated by the direct discharge of water from the canalsystem. Nonetheless it is generally believed that the current freshwater delivery pattern is at odds with the maintenance andresilience of an estuarine biotic community.

Miami-Dade County, the EPA and Biscayne National Park conduct a limited monitoring of salinity and water qualitydistributions in Biscayne Bay, Card Sound, Barnes Sound and Manatee Bay. Since 1993, the Southeast Environmentalresearch Center at Florida International University through funding from SFWMD has operated a monthly monitoringprogram for 16 physical, chemical, and biological variables at 25 stations throughout Biscayne Bay (Jones and Boyer 2000).The data they provide are essential to the calibration and validation of models. Several physical and biological modelingefforts have been or are being conducted in and around Biscayne Bay. The University of Miami (UM) has an operationaltwo-dimensional finite element hydrodynamic model of southern Biscayne Bay that currently simulates currents and salinity(Wang et al. 1988). The model is quite accurate in salinity hindcasting (Wang et al., in review). A more extensive effort isunderway by the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). When complete that model will simulate Bay circulation the entirelength of the Bay from the Oleta River at the Miami-Dade Broward County line to the Card Sound at the Miami-DadeMonroe County line. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is currently developing a preliminary groundwater model thatshould eventually provide boundary conditions to the hydrodynamic models. A seagrass and sponge model dynamically linksBay habitats to water physics and chemistry (Cropper and DiResta 1999). Both the UM and USACE models were designedto couple with fate and transport modules to simulate water quality variability and the fate of pollutants, sediments andnutrients. Last, Ault et al. (1999b) have an operational spatial dynamic multispecies fishery model that, coupled to the UMhydrodynamic model, has the capability of simulating the spatial distribution and dynamics of pink shrimp, juvenile spottedseatrout and gray snapper in southern Biscayne Bay.

Plankton and icthyoplankton were studied in the 1970s in relation to siting of the Turkey Point nuclear power plant(Hale 1999), and more recently in association with the red drum stock enhancement program spearheaded by the State ofFlorida. Early studies by M. Roman and colleagues showed that zooplankton in Biscayne Bay can derive considerablenutrition from seagrass and macroalgal detritus in addition to their more typical phytoplankton food resource.

Serafy and Lindeman (in preparation) provide a brief overview of studies on Biscayne Bay fishes. One of the earliestsummaries was 25 years ago by de Sylva (1976) who lamented the paucity of quantitative data on the bay’s fishes and fisheryresources, a situation that at that time severely limited the effectiveness of coastal management efforts. That situation didnot improve substantially until the 2-year baywide fishery-independent and dependent surveys of Berkeley and Campos


(1984). Among the many products that they provided was a 35-station monthly rollerframe trawl survey that revealedpopulation density data for 16 juvenile fishes, pink shrimp and callinectid crabs. A second penaeid shrimp species exists inBiscayne Bay (Farfantepenaeus brasiliensis), but is not economically important and probably only marginally important froman ecological perspective.

Since 1993, Serafy, Ault, Diaz and colleagues have conducted spatially-extensive nocturnal rollerframe trawl stratifiedrandom sampling surveys from Rickenbacker Causeway to the Arsenicker Keys (Serafy 1997, Ault et al. 1999a,b; Diaz et al.2000). Their empirical surveys captured over 150 species of fish and 20 invertebrates and were designed to anticipate howchanges in water management policy are likely to affect future resource dynamics. Their survey design used benthic habitats(i.e., seagrass, hardbottoms, and sand) and salinity regimes as the principal covariates to improve the precision of pinkshrimp abundance estimates for sampling depths greater than 1 m. Benthic habitats of the bay have been digitized fromaerial overflights and are available as GIS layers (NOAA/FMRI 1998); these are also in need of continual updating andrefinement. The 1993-2000 rollerframe trawl surveys to date have collected over 1000 samples using both fixed and strati-fied random sampling designs. At a given sampling station, two nets are towed simultaneously on either side of the samplingvessel. Water temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and depth were measured at each sampling station. A substantialdigital database is available and can be used to design future sampling surveys (see Ault et al. 1999a). This work has resultedin an efficient, precise and cost-effective sampling survey design for southern Biscayne Bay that has been published (Ault etal. 1999a).

Recent sampling efforts have attempted to develop an integrated view of fishery resources across the seascape to capturethe biological phenomena of bay to reef ontogenetic migrations of a host of key fishery resources (Ault and Luo 1998;Lindeman 1997; Lindeman et al. 2000). Many coral reef fishes use Biscayne Bay as a critical nursery area (Serafy et al. 1997,Ault et al. 1997a, 1998, 1999a). Mangrove lined shorelines appear to function as diurnal shelter for individuals that haveoutgrown the protection afforded by seagrass blades, but are, as yet, too small and/or immature to congregate on offshorecoral reefs. North Biscayne Bay’s mangrove-lined shorelines have largely been eliminated except, notably, in the Oleta Riverarea, but South Biscayne Bay still has considerable mangrove-lined shoreline along its length. A biannual visual survey toquantify fish assemblages that utilize southern Biscayne Bay’s mangrove-lined shorelines was begun in 1998 and is ongoing(Serafy, pers. comm.). This survey has expanded to include the mangrove shorelines of Card Sound, Barnes Sound andnortheastern Florida Bay. The approximately 235 survey samples so far have uncovered very high densities of juvenile andsubadult gray snapper, schoolmaster snapper (Lutjanus apodus), several grunt species (Haemulidae) and great barracuda(Sphyraena barracuda), among others, occupying the mangrove fringes. Adult snook (Centropomus undecimalis) have beendetected in low numbers, primarily in mainland mangrove habitats. As yet, only one grouper species (Black grouper,Myteroperca bonaci in Barnes Sound) has been observed in these daytime surveys. This observation and some ongoingtrapping studies on Florida’s west coast suggest grouper presence and/or movement within mangroves is primarily nocturnal.

Our current understanding of Biscayne Bay fish population dynamics, abundance and spatial distributions, both past andpresent, remains incomplete for at least four reasons. First, virtually all quantitative fish studies were performed post-1970,after the construction of the coastal canal system. Second, since Berkeley and Campos’ efforts, few studies have encompassedboth the northern and southern portions of the Bay. Third, in most cases sampling efforts were of exceedingly short durationand not maintained over sufficient time periods to allow accurate evaluation of inter-annual changes in the inshore fishcommunity. And fourth, observations reported as from inside the Bay proper have often been inappropriately combined withdata from adjacent offshore waters.

Considerable information on juvenile fishes and pink shrimp obtained over the past few years presents an opportunityto make comparisons with juvenile fish and shrimp abundances of 20 years ago. The relatively extensive juvenile fish dataset of Serafy, Ault and Diaz collected during the 1990s using rollerframe trawls has yet to be completely analyzed, and itsresults need to be rigorously compared to those of Berkeley and Campos (1984) and Campos (1985). At present, reliablequantitative data for the Bay are especially lacking for sub-adult and mature adult life stages of most fishes. There have beenno scientific studies on native and exotic freshwater fish communities, known to inhabit in the lower reaches of the canalsand natural creeks that flow into Biscayne Bay.


The effects of toxicants or other stresses on Biscayne Bay resources are not well known. The prevalence of fish withexternal abnormalities has fueled concerns of local fishermen and environmentalists concerning toxic materials entering thebay and their ecological consequences (Skinner and Kandrashoff 1988, Browder et al. 1993, Gassman et al. 1994, SFWMD1995, Long 1999, Corrales et al. 2000), but a clear causative agent for the abnormalities has not yet been identified. Themajor types of deformities observed from rollerframe trawl and hook-and-line captures were stunted or missing fin rays,depressions in the dorsal profile, jaw deformities and scale disorientation. These deformities were particularly evident in seabream (Archosargus rhomboidalis), bluestriped grunt (Haemulon sciurus), pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides), and gray snapper(Lutjanus griseus). Gassman et al. (1994) found a significant correlation between abnormality prevalence (all fish combined)and aliphatic hydrocarbon concentrations in the sediments. However with one exception, no correlations were detectedbetween deformities in individual species and sediment concentrations of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) or heavy metalslike cadmium, copper, lead, mercury and zinc. The exception was between sediment copper levels and abnormalities in thebluestriped grunt (Gassman et al. 1994).

However, it remains uncertain as to whether observed fin ray and jaw deformities, respectively, reflect prior encounterswith (and escapement/release from) nets and hook-and-line gear. All of the spiny-rayed species examined are routinelyentangled in the rollerframe trawl nets and forcefully removed onboard before they are rapidly returned to bay waters. Andcertainly, physical injury to fish mouth parts is part-and-parcel of hook-and-line fishing (Gjernes et al. 1993; Albin andKarpov 1998). On the other hand, similar dorsal fin ray abnormalities and depression in the dorsal profile were reported inseveral generations of an aquaculture population of Tilapia, suggesting that something other than mechanical damage cancause these abnormalities (Browder et al. 1993, Gassman et al. 1994). More precise data on contaminant distributions andthe ecotoxicological response of animals to exposure to contaminants found in Biscayne Bay sediments are needed toestablish the causes of specific observed deformities in specific fish species. Recent laboratory experiments suggest thatmechanical damage alone cannot cause observed scale disorientation abnormalities (Corrales et al. 2000). Based uponcircumstantial and correlative evidence, the proportions of abnormal versus normal fish have been incorporated into Ohio’saquatic index of biological integrity as well as similar efforts in other states and nations (Simon 1999). Nevertheless, the rolefishing-related mechanical damage as either cause or contributor to the deformities observed in Biscayne Bay fishes deservesparticular attention.

Conclusions and RecommendationsThe future of Biscayne Bay is dependent on the how the effects from human population growth and economic activities aremanaged. The function and dynamics of the Bay’s critical resources need to be understood to effectively address the myriadof management and sustainability issues currently faced. However, the most serious immediate problem requiring attention isalteration in freshwater inflows. What is required and urgently needed to predict with any confidence the effects of alteredupstream water management is focused biological and physico-chemical research to develop an integrated view of thecoupled anthropogenic and natural-physical processes regulating ecosystem dynamics within the Bay. A robust ecosystem-wide strategy to monitor the Bay’s ecological condition is critical. What is required to make responsible recommendations tomanagement is, therefore, an integrated program of monitoring, process studies and interdisciplinary modeling. Recom-mended critical activities follow.

1) Investigate historical salinity conditions

(Justification: while it is generally believed that Biscayne Bay was more estuarine in the past, the actual salinity distributionthat obtained in the Bay prior to water management and human development impacts is not well known. It is needed toestablish a reference point and perspective for ecological restoration)


Specific Science Recommendationsa) Conduct a background synthesis on the range and dynamics of ‘pre-European settlement’ salinity condi-

tions that existed prior to 1700 using a strategic combination of literature synthesis, numerical modeling,and paleo-ecological studies on foraminifera abundance and oyster bar distributions.

2) Monitor pink shrimp, blue crab and juvenile fishes

(Justification: These species constitute something of a special case since they can be sampled (and have been sampled) as partof an integrated trawl-based monitoring effort. Given their trophic importance and demonstrated sensitivity to salinitydistribution change these efforts need to be continued and expanded)


a) Expand baywide and continue as restoration proceeds, a field monitoring effort directed at quantifying theabundance and distribution pink shrimp, blue crab and juvenile fishes.

b) A disease and abnormality component should be integrated within this effort with expertise and fieldpersonnel specific to this purpose.

3) Monitor fish utilization of Bay’s shallow and shoreline habitats

(Justification: Shoreline habitats are the first and most significant areas to be affected by proposed changes in watermanagement policies in Biscayne Bay).


a) Particular attention needs to be paid to populations that utilize the bay’s shallow (< 1 m depth), intertidaland mangrove-lined shoreline habitats wheres within the Bay salinity changes will be greatest.

4) Conduct before-after ecological studies associated with Coastal Wetlands Component.

(Justification: The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Component hasthe potential to effect major changes in the extent of available wetlands if implemented.

Specific Science Recommendationsa) Appropriate “before-after” ecological studies need to be done in conjunction with this restoration project

since it directly affects one of the principal contiguous Sub ecosystems in the Bay.

b) These studies should be extended well beyond the immediate zone of influence of the project to ensurethat a complete understanding of project effects is achieved and that effective and timely changes aremade to improve project performance over the course of its’ implementation

5) Monitor exploited species populations and fisheries.

(Justification: Changes in exploited species populations and fisheries have substantial social and economic consequences)

Specific Science Recommendationsa) Basic demographic and population-dynamic data on stock abundance, age, size structure, growth, and

reproduction are needed.


b) Rates of fishing pressure/exploitation are also required for resource assessment, and fishery managementpurposes and to parse out restoration effects from over-fishing.

c) As part of this effort, further research is necessary to establish the extent to which mechanical damagefrom trawling and dredging activities directly and indirectly affect the bay’s fish assemblages, including thequantification of habitat recovery rates of the resilience and stability of key resources.

6) Determine habitat value of altered and restored habitats north of Rickenbacker Causeway.

(Justification: This area is especially characterized by man-made structures, shorelines and altered benthic habitats and hasunfortunately been inadequetely sampled over the last decade in comparison with south Biscayne Bay)

Specific Science Recommendationsa) Determine the fish and invertebrate diversity, distribution, population size structure, abundance and

dynamics of the bay north of Rickenbacker Causeway.

b) Fishery resource monitoring of areas enhanced or restored by Miami-Dade County should be specificallyincluded in this effort since local differences are expected as a result of these local actions and mightconfound interpretation relative to overall restoration effects.

7) Conduct laboratory studies on salinity effects.

(Justification: the primary effect of CERP is expected to be alteration of the Bay salinity regime. Given the canalstructures pulsed introductions are typical and we need better understanding of physiological responses to suchrealistic stresses not just overall “salinity tolerance” determination to predict population consequences).

Specific Science Recommendationsa) Laboratory experiments on salinity effects on key (and sensitive) species are essential.

b) Specifically needed are controlled laboratory studies on the physiological impacts of variable salinityregimes (and freshwater pulse frequency, duration, and magnitude) on growth and survivorship of key lifestages of ecologically and economically important species.

8) Study creek and canal flora and fauna .

(Justification: Additional freshwater entering the Bay will be introduced through the present network of creeks andcanals the fauna and fauna of which has already been substantially altered and to which numerous exotic specieshave been introduced. We need to better characterize these populations if we are to determine what changes followrestoration actions.)

Specific Science Recommendationsa) Quantitative characterization not just of the Bay itself but of the native and exotic flora and fauna in the

lower reaches of the canals and natural creeks that flow into the Bay is essential

9) Investigate contaminant and physical stress effects on marine organisms.

(Justification: Limited information already available suggests pollutants and toxicants are reaching the Bay and that someof the canals are particularly contaminated. Animal abnormalities have been reported but no clear cause and effectrelationships have been established).


Specific Science Recommendationsa) The source and distribution of pollutants and toxicants entering the Bay as well as spatio-temporal

distribution of abnormalities requires further attention.

b) Initial focus is recommended on laboratory research that examines the extent to which mechanical andtoxicant stresses, both singly and in combination, are responsible for the two major abnormalities encoun-tered in fish in the Bay, scale disorientation and fin ray deformity.

10) Develop coupled biophysical models.

(Justification: Quantitatively linking biological change to the physical changes resulting from upstream water management changes requires dynamic predictive modeling of physical – biological interactions given the highlynon-linear responses typical of such complex systems).

Specific Science Recommendationsa) Coupled biophysical models that predict the spatial dynamics and distribution of key upper trophic-level

resources need to be refined considerably to be useful in fishery management and coastal zone develop-ment to evaluate the ecological risks of certain development and restoration scenarios.

11)Develop spatially-explicit ecological databases.

(Justification: Testing scientific hypotheses and evaluating management alternative scenarios requires access byboth the scientific and management communities to the same information base)

Specific Scientific Recommendations:

a) Very high priority should be given to development of an integrated database containing all biological andphysical ‘habitat’ layers, hydrodynamic circulation, salinity and water quality variables, and commercialand recreational fisheries and ecological data.

b) High resolution habitat maps (in GIS or other visualization formats) are needed to clarify types and extentof static and dynamic habitats throughout Biscayne Bay.

c) The GIS tool should be embedded in a sophisticated database management,statistical, visualization, andmodeling system to facilitate the assessments and risk analyses required by managers

ReferencesAlbin, D and Karpov, KA (1998) Mortality of Lingcod, Ophiodon elongatus, Related to Capture by Hook and Line. Marine

Fisheries Review 60:29-34.

Ault, J.S., Bohnsack, J.A., and G.A. Meester. 1997a. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: retrospective (1979-1995)assessment of reef fish and the case for protected marine areas. Pages 415-425 in Developing and Sustaining WorldFisheries Resources: The State of Science and Management. Hancock, D.A., Smith, D.C., Grant, A., and J.P. Beumer(eds.). 2nd World Fisheries Congress, Brisbane, Australia. 797 p.

Ault, J.S., Bohnsack, J.A., and G.A. Meester. 1998. A retrospective (1979-1996) multispecies assessment of coral reef fishstocks in the Florida Keys. Fishery Bulletin 96(3):395-414.


Ault, J.S., Diaz, G.A., Smith, S.G., Luo, J. and J.E. Serafy. 1999a. An efficient sampling survey design to estimate pinkshrimp population abundance in Biscayne Bay, Florida. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19(3):696-712.

Ault, J.S. and J. Luo.1998. Coastal bays to coral reefs: systems use of scientific data visualization in reef fishery management.International Council for the Exploration of the Seas. ICES C.M. 1998/S:3

Ault, J.S., Luo, J., Smith, S.G., Serafy, J.E., Wang, J.D., Diaz, G.A., and R. Humston. 1999b. A spatial dynamic multistockproduction model. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56 (S1):4-25.

Ault, J.S., Serafy, J.E., DiResta, D., and J. Dandelski. 1997. Impacts of commercial fishing on key habitats within BiscayneNational Park 1997 Miami. Division of Marine Biology and Fisheries, Rosenstiel School of Marine and AtmosphericScience, University of Miami. 80 p.

Berkeley, S.A., and W.L. Campos. 1984. Fisheries assessment of Biscayne Bay. Final Report to Dade County Department ofEnvironmental Research Management. 212 p.

Berkeley, S.A., Pybas, D.W., and W.L. Campos. 1985. Bait shrimp fishery of Biscayne Bay. Florida Sea Grant TechnicalPaper 40. 16 p.

Brook, I.M. 1982. The effect of freshwater canal discharge on the stability of two seagrass benthic communities in BiscayneNational Park, Florida. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Coastal Lagoons, Bordeaux, France. OceanolActa 1982:63-72.

Browder, J.A., McClellan, D.B., Harper, D.E., and M.G. Kandrashoff. 1993. A major developmental defect in severalBiscayne Bay, Florida, fish species. Environmental Biology of Fishes 37:181-188.

Campos, W.L. 1985. Distribution patterns of juvenile epibenthic fishes in south Biscayne Bay, Florida. MS Thesis. Univer-sity of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. 110 p.

Corrales, J., Nye, L.B., Baribeau, S., Gassman, N.J., and M.C. Schmale. 2000. Environmental Biology of Fishes 57:205-220.

Cropper, W., and D. DiResta. 1999. Demographic sponge model for Biscayne Bay. Ecological Modelling 118:1-15.

de Sylva, D.P. 1976. Fishes of Biscayne Bay, Florida. Pp.181-202. In Thorhaug, A., and A. Volker (eds), ‘Biscayne Bay: past/present/future: Papers presented for Biscayne Bay Symposium I. Coral Gables. University of Miami Sea Grant Program.

Diaz, G.A., Smith, S.G., Serafy, J.E., and J.S. Ault. 2000. Allometry of pink shrimp growth in a subtropical bay. Trans.Amer. Fish. Soc., in press

FMRI. 1994. Marine fish stock enhancement and hatchery legislative report. Florida Department of Environmental Protec-tion, Division of Marine Resources, Florida Marine Research Institute.

Gassman, N.J., Nye, L.B., and M.C. Schmale. 1994. Distribution of abnormal biota and sediment contaminants in BiscayneBay, Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science 54:929-943.

Gjernes, T; Kronlund, AR; Mulligan, TJ (1993) Mortality of chinook and coho salmon in their first year of ocean lifefollowing catch and release by anglers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 13:524-539.

Hale, K.1999. Bibliography on scientific research in Biscayne Bay and associated waters. University of Miami RSMASTechnical Report.

Harper, D.E., J.A. Bohnsack and B.R. Lockwood (unpublished manuscript). Recreational fisheries in Biscayne NationalPark, Florida 1976-1991.


Hill J., D.L. Fowler, D.L. and M.J. van den Avyle. 1989. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements ofcoastal fishes and invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic). Blue crab. Biol. Rep. US Fish Wildl. Serv. 27 pp.

Jones, R. D., and J. N. Boyer. 2000. An Integrated Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program for South Florida CoastalWaters. Annual Report to SFWMD under NPS/SERC Cooperative Agreement #5280-2-9017, SFWMD/SERC Coop-erative Agreement #C-10244.

Lindeman, K.C. 1997. Development of grunts and snappers of southeast Florida: cross-shelf distributions and effects of beachmanagement alternatives. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Miami RSMAS. 419 p.

Lindeman, K.C., and D.B. Snyder. 1999. Nearshore hardbottom fishes of southeast Florida and effects of habitat burialcaused by dredging. Fishery Bulletin 97:508-525.

Lindeman, K.C., Pugliese, R., Waugh, G.T., and J.S. Ault. 2000. Development patterns within a multispecies reef fishery:management applications for essential fish habitats and protected areas. Bulletin of Marine Science 66(3):929-956.

Long, E. 1999. Distribution of toxics in Biscayne Bay. NOAA Hazardous Materials Tech. Report, Seattle, WA.

Serafy, J.E., J.S. Ault and M.E. Clarke 1996. Red drum stock enhancement program: Biscayne Bay fishery-independentassessment. Final report on Contract MR018 to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 98p with appen-dices.

Serafy, J.E., K.C. Lindeman, T.E. Hopkins, and J.S. Ault. 1997. Effects of freshwater canal discharge on fish assemblages in asubtropical bay: field and laboratory observations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 160:161-172.

Serafy, J.E., Ault, J.S., Capo, T.R., and D.R. Schultz. 1999. Red drum stock enhancement in Biscayne Bay, Florida USA:assessment of rearing and releasing unmarked early juveniles. Aquaculture Research 30:737-750.

Serafy, J.E., and K.C. Lindeman. In prep. An overview of studies on Biscayne Bay fishes. Unpublished manuscript.

Simon, T.P. 1999. Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. CRCPress, Boca Raton, FL. 671 p.

Lindeman, K.C., G.A. Diaz, J.E. Serafy, and J.S. Ault 1998. A spatial framework for assessing cross-shelf habitat use amongnewly settled grunts and snappers. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 50:385-416.

Montague, C.L., and J.A. Ley. 1993. A possible effect of salinity fluctuation on abundance of benthic vegetation andassociated fauna in Northeastern Florida Bay. Estuaries 16:707-717.

Milano, G.R. 1999a. Restoration of coastal wetlands in southeastern Florida. Wetland Journal 11: 15-24

Milano, G.R. 1999b. Island restoration and enhancement in Biscayne Bay, Florida, of coastal wetlands in southeasternFlorida. DERM Report. 17 p.

Romans, B.A. 1775. A concise and natural history of east and west Florida. Rembert, W. P. (ed) 1962. Florida Fac-simile and Reprint Series. Univ. of Florida Press. Gainesville, FL.

Serafy, J.E., Lindeman, K.C., Hopkins, T.E., and J.S. Ault. 1997. Effects of freshwater canal discharge on fish assemblages ina subtropical bay: field and laboratory observations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 160:161-172.

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 1995. Biscayne Bay Surface Water Improvement and Management.Technical Supporting Document. Planning Department, West Palm Beach. Florida.

Skinner, R.H., and W. Kandrashoff. 1988. Abnormalities and diseases observed in commercial fish catches from BiscayneBay, Florida. Water Resources Bulletin 24:961-966.


Smith, H.M.. 1896. Notes on Biscayne Bay, Florida, with reference to its adaptability as the site of a marine hatching andexperiment station. Report of the Commissioner [U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries] for the year ending June 30,1895. 21. Pp 169_191.

van Heukelem, W.F. 1991. Habitat requirements for Chesapeake Bay living resources: blue crab. In: Funderburk SL, SJJordan, JA Mihursky, D. Riley (eds). Habitat requirements for Chesapeake Bay living resources. 2nd Edition. Chesa-peake Research Consortium Inc. Solomons, Maryland.

Wang, J.D., Cofer-Shabica, S.V., and J. Chin-Fatt. 1988. Finite element characteristic advection model. Journal of HydraulicEngineering 114:1098-1114.

Habitat and Species of concern175

Habitat and Species of concern

Authors:

Anitra Thorhaug, Joan A. Browder, Harold R. Wanless, Martin Roessler, Ruth Ewing,Gwen Burzycki, Michael S. Ross, Renate H. Skinner, Sarah Bellmund, Laura Cantral,

Mark Kraus, Lara Coburn, and Stephen Traxler.

Editors or Contributors:

Kay Hale, Robert Kelley, Elizabeth A. Irlandi, James Porter, William L. Maus,Frank Mazzotti, Mabel Miller, Gary R. Milano, J. Harold Hudson, Richard Curry, Lenore P. Tedesco,

Winifred Teas, Jerome L. Lorenz, Jerald S. Ault, Kenyon C. Lindeman, Joseph E. Serafy,Helen Albertson, Oron L. Bass., Jr., Brian Mealy, Steven Carney, and Lenore P. Tedesco

Note: Committee member names are in bold.


IntroductionBiscayne Bay and its watershed are located on the southeast coast of Florida and extend from Miami-Dade County south toMonroe County. Biscayne Bay is a shallow, clear water subtropical estuary-lagoon system that supports a wide variety of fishand wildlife. Important habitats to the bay include terrestrial ecosystems, coastal wetlands, water-column, and benthiccommunities.

The bay and its coastal areas are home to over 172 species of concern as well as a vast array of other estuarine, marine,and reef plants and animals (Table 1). Specific habitat is provided in the bay for each of its resident animal species, as well asspecies that migrate in and out of the bay seasonally or daily. If their habitat becomes unsuitable or disappears, the animalslose their home and disappear and humans lose the value of these species. Loss of habitat for these species impacts ecosystemhealth, degrades the bay, and ultimately impacts its ability to provide aesthetic, recreational, and economic benefits to thepeople who use and enjoy it (Bader et al. 1972, Roessler and Beardsley 1974, Roessler et al. 1976).

The principal present threats to the Biscayne Bay ecosystem are: (1) changes in the quantity, quality, timing, anddistribution of freshwater inflows; (2) water quality degradation and anthropogenic inputs of pollutants of all types, includ-ing nutrients, which stimulate algal blooms, and toxicants, which accumulate in the sediments and threaten animalsdirectly; and (3) physical alteration or damage to the bay bottom. All of these threats have the potential to eliminatebenthic communities, destabilize bottom sediments, and increase turbidity.

Our goal is to develop and use scientific information to (1) sustain critical bay habitats and species of concern into thenext 25-50 yrs, (2) repair past damage to provide an optimal set of sustainable habitats in the future, and (3) prepare forinevitable accidents of man’s activities, natural catastrophes and global warming with restoration techniques (e.g., for oilspills, hurricanes, sea level rise, ship groundings, and vessel scarring).

This report provides a brief discussion of Biscayne Bay habitats and some of the species that inhabit it. Different types ofhabitat are described, and threats to their functionality are identified. In addition, a review of some of the efforts to restorethese habitats in Biscayne Bay is also included. Recommendations for addressing the threats facing Biscayne Bay habitatsand species of concern are included, as well as a scientific and popular name list of protected animals and plants in the bayand the adjacent uplands.

Biscayne bay Habitats: AN OVERVIEWThe ecosystems flanking Biscayne Bay can be divided into four broad categories: coastal upland, freshwater wetland,transitional wetland, and mangrove swamp. Benthic habitat within Biscayne Bay includes seagrass, hardbottom, sand andmud bottom, coral-algal bank fringes, and rocky intertidal. Because nutrients, materials, and biota are exchanged or sharedamong these ecosystems and the bay, the health of the bay is inextricably linked to the ecological condition of theseinterconnected areas. Each of these categories of Biscayne Bay habitat is described below.

Terrestrial HabitatTerrestrial ecosystems of the Biscayne Bay watershed have been dramatically altered by urban and agricultural developmentand the construction of a regional water management system, whose primary functions were provision of flood control andwater supply for urban and agricultural interests in south Florida. In the uplands, the impacts of fragmentation, habitat loss,and exotic invasion have been especially acute. Most wetlands that bordered northern Biscayne Bay have been replaced by


urban development, while the coastal wetlands in southwestern Biscayne Bay have shifted dramatically. Whereas previouslya broad zone of freshwater marshes graded into transitional marshes and a thin fringe of coastal mangroves, today thesewetlands include a narrowed freshwater swamp forest that gives way abruptly to a much broader zone of mangrove forest(Reark 1975, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1994).

The major categories of terrestrial ecosystems of the Biscayne Bay watershed are described below. While their character-istics differ, they are all sensitive and susceptible to changes in hydrology, nutrients and other contaminants, and waterquality. Thus, looking for ways to protect and enhance these important ecosystems remains a challenge in the face ofcontinuing development in the area.

1. Coastal UplandThe Miami Rock Ridge is the hydrologic divide that distinguishes the interconnected Everglades and Biscayne Bay water-sheds. As recently as the early decades of the twentieth century, a nearly continuous mixture of pine forest and hardwoodhammock cloaked these coastal uplands with the pine forest as the most abundant. The open canopies of the pine forestswere maintained by periodic fires that killed encroaching hardwoods, allowing development of a rich flora of understoryherbs and shrubs, many of them endemic to south Florida. The hardwood hammocks were located at slightly lower eleva-tions and along the fringes of seasonal wetlands. They were, therefore, cool and moist, and resisted most fires. The mesicconditions of the hammock favored rich assemblages of epiphytes and trees, including a mixture of tropical and temperatespecies (Robertson 1955, Snyder et al. 1990). Wildlife of the upland forests was also rich, especially in birds, reptiles, andmammals (Robertson et al. 1994).

Today the few remaining upland forests are tiny fragments in an urban and agricultural matrix. Fragmentation, habitatloss, fire suppression, reduction in the water table, and the introduction and expansion of exotic plants and animals havechanged the nature and threatened the long term stability of these ecosystems. The continued loss and deterioration ofupland forests in the Biscayne Bay watershed is likely to have important consequences for adjacent ecosystems, due to loss ofconnectivity among habitats, reduction in groundwater recharge, increases in stormwater runoff, and other changes.

2. Coastal WetlandsHistorically, Biscayne Bay was bordered by a mix of mangroves, salt marsh, and herbaceous freshwater marsh. This mix wasbraided by tidal creeks that served the bay by spreading inflow, absorbing excess nutrients, and providing habitat — includ-ing critical nursery habitat — for fish and shellfish, as well as feeding habitat for wading birds. Local rainfall, groundwaterseepage, and overland flow through the transverse glades and small coastal rivers fed tidal deltas and creeks. Maintained byfreshwater inflow, the natural herbaceous wetlands, fresh-to-brackish tidal creeks, and low-salinity mangrove shoreline anddelta provided a broad band of habitat for estuarine organisms having a variety of salinity needs. Coastal wetlands includethe Southeastern Glades, the Saline Transitional Wetlands, and the Mangrove Wetlands.

a. Southeastern Glades

Freshwater wetlands in the Biscayne Bay watershed historically occupied the marl prairies immediately east of theMiami Rock Ridge (Egler 1952, Alexander and Crook 1974, 1984). They are most extensive in the southernreaches of Miami-Dade County, where the Ridge curves westward away from the coast. Prior to development, thesemarshes were dominated by sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) and other freshwater herbs. Water reached them viadirect precipitation, surface flow from the Everglades through breaks in the Ridge (transverse glades), or risinggroundwater when the regional water table was high (Tropical BioIndustries 1990). Today surface water inputs arelargely precipitation-driven and their hydrologic regime is artificially controlled largely by regional water manage-ment practices.


The marl prairies and transverse glades were extensively developed for agriculture in the early portion of the twentiethcentury. These areas were among the regions most desirable for production of winter vegetables, due to the combination ofsoils that were relatively deep, and seasonal flooding that kept agricultural diseases to a minimum (D. Gann, pers. comm.).By the mid-1950s, saltwater intrusion had affected many of the fields closest to the coast (U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency 1994) and development of disease resistant crop varieties had made wetland farming unnecessary (D. Gann, pers.comm.). Abandonment of these disturbed areas was soon followed by invasion by exotic plants, especially Brazilian pepper(Schinus terebinthifolius) and Australian pine (Casuarina spp.). These trees were introduced around the turn of the twentiethcentury, and were widely distributed for horticultural uses. The combination of these factors provided a prime opportunityfor spread of these invasive plants along the southwestern shore of Biscayne Bay (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency1994).

b. Saline Transitional Wetlands

A natural feature of south Florida coastlines is a distinct band of transitional wetlands found between the freshwaterwetlands of the interior and the coastal mangrove swamps. Characterized by a mixture of mangrove shrubs andsalt-tolerant vegetation, (e.g., Spartina spartinae, Borrichia spp., Distichlis spicata, Juncus romoerianus), the transi-tional wetlands are structurally and compositionally distinct from neighboring vegetation types. They are lower inplant cover than the wetlands on either side, and are therefore readily identifiable as a “white zone” on black andwhite or color infrared imagery.

Salinity variation may contribute to the low productivity of white zone vegetation; soil salinities may rangeseasonally from brackish to hypersaline, depending on climatic conditions and tidal events. Plant communities ofthe white zone thus appear to be functionally equivalent to high marsh communities further north on the AtlanticCoastal Plain. Given their ecotonal position, several researchers have used historical shifts in the location andextent of the white zone as indicators of a changing balance between upstream freshwater sources on one hand andtidal saltwater on the other (Egler 1952, Teas et al. 1976, Ross et al. 2000).

c. Mangrove Wetlands

Pre-settlement mangrove forests lining the western shore of Biscayne Bay were typically narrow strips that gave wayto marsh vegetation within a few hundred meters or less of the coast (Reark 1975, Teas et al. 1976). The width ofthe mangrove fringe was variable, with marsh vegetation fronting directly on the coast in places, and mangrovesextending far into the interior near major concentrations of tidal creeks. Much of the original coastal wetlandsadjoining the northern and central bay has been lost to urban development. There are isolated local stands ofmangroves in north Biscayne Bay, but large ecologically functional stands of mangroves are limited to an area inand around the Oleta River and are now in public ownership. In central Biscayne Bay major ecologically func-tional stands of mangroves are located on Virginia Key and Key Biscayne. This area also contains other functionalisolated freshwater coastal wetland habitat. Further south, an almost continuous fringe of mangroves is found onthe western shoreline of the bay from Matheson Hammock south to Monroe County and Florida Bay.

Benthic HabitatBiscayne Bay’s principal benthic communities include seagrass (64 percent), hard bottom (17 percent), and sand and mudbottom (Markley and Milano 1985). Another important benthic community that covers a relatively small area is the coral-algal bank fringe. Seagrasses are found in all parts of the Bay where water depth and clarity allow sufficient light penetration,sediment depth is sufficient to support seagrass roots, bottom current velocities are appropriate, and past disturbances havenot eliminated them. Approximately 15 percent of Biscayne Bay does not support conspicuous plant or animal life (Markleyand Milano 1985).


Extensive shallow areas of exposed hard limestone substrate and sparse cover of seagrass exist along the axis of centraland southern Biscayne Bay and along parts of its western edge. These areas are dominated by sea fans, sponges, andmacroalgae and contain scattered hard corals. Massive low sediment banks are a major feature of the bay that separate it intosemi-isolated basins, although to a lesser extent than in Florida Bay. While the bank tops are covered in large part byseagrasses, their dynamic leading edges are fringed with a mixture of coral and algae that forms the frontline against erosion.

The benthic communities of Biscayne Bay are supported by, and in turn contribute to, the bay’s natural water clarity.Seagrasses, in particular, have an important function in creating and maintaining water clarity and sediment stability, whichthey do by binding sediments with their roots, baffling bottom currents with their leaves and rhizomes, and taking upnutrients from the water column that would otherwise be used by phytoplankton (Onuf 1994). They not only stabilizebottom sediments, including banks, but also contribute to the structural stability of shorelines (Ginsburg and Lowenstam1958, Wood et al. 1969, Fonseca 1996).

a. Seagrasses

Seagrasses create a supportive chemical and physical environment for the bay. They are important primary produc-ers, sequestering carbon, producing oxygen, and converting the sun’s energy into food and structure useful to fish,invertebrates, and wildlife (Wood et al. 1969). Productivity in some seagrass systems is equivalent to that ofagricultural crops (0.3-16.0 gm C/m2/day) (Zieman 1978, Thorhaug and Roessler 1975).

Many animal species are associated with seagrasses. Manatees and subadult and adult green sea turtles and manyinvertebrates feed directly on seagrass (Odell 1975; Bjorndahl 1980, 1982; Coyne 1994). Many other animals ofthe Bay are supported by seagrass-based food webs. The seagrass communities of the Bay provide food and shelterfor fish, shrimp, and crabs—especially postlarval, juvenile stages—and other aquatic life. Studies in the bay andother south Florida estuaries indicate that the abundance of pink shrimp is greater in seagrass sites than on barebottom (McLaughlin et al. 1983, Robblee et al. 1991, Sheridan 1992). Many fishery species commonly associatedwith reefs and found on them by day move onto seagrass beds to feed at night (Zieman 1982). Animals are moreabundant in seagrass beds because they afford greater habitat complexity, food availability, increased living space,and protection from predators (Fonseca et al. 1992).

At least seven seagrass species occur in Biscayne Bay: turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum), shoal grass (Halodulewrightii), manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme), and three species of paddle grass (Halophila), including the speciesfederally listed as endangered, Halophila johnsonii. Widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) has been found in the extremesouth bay. Turtle grass is a major stabilizating force with persistent root systems up to 5-10 feet deep into thesediment (Ginsburg and Lowenstam 1958, Phillips 1960, Patriquin 1975). Manatee grass and shoal grass frequentlyare the first colonizers, rapidly growing into perturbed niches ( Phillips 1960, den Hartog 1974, Humm, pers.comm.). The more slowly growing turtle grass cannot spread laterally as rapidly ( Miller et al. 1986), but creates adominant subsediment mass of root material as it does colonize ( Patriquin 1975) and can grow vertically to keepup with increasing sediment depth (Fonseca 1996). Shoal grass usually forms the intertidal zone of a seagrass bed(Phillips 1960), however, in Biscayne Bay, manatee grass is frequently in the outer zone of a bed (den Hartog1974). Paddle grass grows under conditions of depth and water clarity where other seagrasses may not grow.Seagrasses commonly occur in mixed-species beds.

Activities that disturb the bottom communities of the bay disrupt the balance between biological and physicalforces that maintain the bay’s water clarity and sediment stability. These activities include not only dredge and filloperations, which alters water depth or eliminates bottom area, and shoreline bulkheading, which increases waveforces, but also bottom disturbance and wakes of large vessels, prop scarring and scouring by recreational vessels,and bottom damage or disturbance by fishing activities. When seagrass coverage is lost, the services formerlyprovided by seagrass become unavailable.

Seagrasses cover large parts of the central and southern bay, but are found to a lesser extent in the northern bay,


where dredge and fill activities have eliminated habitat, and resulting water depths and turbidity prevent reestab-lishment in many places.

b. Hardbottom habitat

The hard bottom assemblage is characterized by soft corals and small patch reefs of hard corals plus sponges and isfound predominantly in Biscayne National Park in the southeast bay. These stabilize the bottom, filter the water,and add shelter and food. The most common soft corals are angular seawhip (Pterogorgia anceps) and the doubleforked plexaurella (Plexaurella dichotoma). The dense hardbottom community characteristically has a greaterdiversity of soft corals, including the purple sea plume (Pseudopterogorgia acerosa), slimy sea plume(Pseudopterogorgia acerosa), slimy sea plume (Pseudopterogorgia americana), and species of the genera Eunicea. Thepredominant hard coral species in the bay are finger coral (Porites sp.), star coral (Solenastrea sp.), and starlet coral(Siderastrea sp.). Fire coral (Millepora sp.) is typically present. The most common sponge species are loggerhead(Spheciospongia vesparia) and the basket sponge (Ircinia campana). Species once harvested commercially includesheepswool (Hippiospongia lachne), yellow (Spongia barbara), grass (Spongia germinea), and glove (Spongia cheiris)sponge. Biscayne Bay is one of the few bays in the U.S. in which soft and hard corals are found over large areas. Seafans and corals are very sensitive to man’s alteration of turbidity, salinity, physical abrasion by boats and nets,pollutants, severe recreational use, and changes in temperature. Once impacted, it takes years for regrowth. Fishand invertebrates inhabit the hardbottom habitat. Species associated with hardbottom habitat are primarily fromAllemanet al. (1995) and a map by Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management(1983).

c. Sand and mud bottom habitat

Benthic sand and mud bottom habitats occur both as natural and altered bottoms. Natural sand and mud habitatsoccur within the shallow Safety Valve and Featherbed Banks, as local patches within the bay, and as extensive sandzones seaward of the bay (Iversen and Beardsley 1974). Most are areas too frequently stressed by hurricane andwinter storm waves and currents for seagrass or macroalgal communities to restabilize the bottom. Algal matscolonize these bottoms between erosion events, and the benthos is characterized by burrowing invertebrates.

Barren sand and mud bottoms produced by human modification dominate the deeper part of central-northernBiscayne Bay, the bottom of dredged channels and borrow areas that pervade the northern bay, and areas adjacentto canal mouths. The deeper dredged bottom areas (15-50 feet depth) characteristically receive insufficient lightfor colonization by seagrasses or macroalgae and have a flocculant ooze at the substrate surface that inhibits aviable macrobenthic community. Worms and a restricted suite of mollusks inhabitat this deeper soft mud bottom(McNulty et al. 1962a, 1962b; McNulty 1970). The natural 15-20 foot-deep central bay south of the RickenbackerCauseway has historically lost seagrass cover, in part because of decreasing water clarity. Mainland nearshore barrenareas adjacent to areas of pulsed freshwater canal discharge likely result from the combination of rapid, extremesalinity flux and possibly because of contaminant and high nutrient loads.

d. Coral-algal bank fringe habitat

The coral-algal bank-fringe community stabilizes the seaward and channel margin sand bottoms of the moreexposed portions of the Safety Valve, Featherbed Bank, and the flood tidal delta in Bear Cut between Virginia Keyand Key Biscayne (Voss and Voss, 1955, Wanless 1975, Wanless et al. 1995). This fringe community is dominatedby the branching coral, Porites divaricata, and the calcifying branching red algae, Neogoniolithon sp. The skeletonsare “bound” by anastomizing sponges, giving wave-resistant stability to the community. The corals, Siderastrearadians, Manicina aerolata, and Cladocora arbuscula are also common, as well as the calcareous algae Halimeda spp.,Penicillus capitatus, Utotea, spp., and Rhipocephalus sp. The open skeletal network provides habitat for a greatvariety of invertebrates, including brittle stars, mollusks, and octopi. Since 1950, this community has been lost asan effective living community in Bear Cut and the northern Safety Valve. Although they cover a relatively small


area, these benthic assemblages are functionally very important because they help to stabilize the part of the bankthat is most vulnerable to erosional forces.

e. Rocky intertidal

Rocky intertidal habitats occur as natural limestone shoreline adjacent to portions of central and southern BiscayneBay, along the sea margin of most of the Upper Keys, and as human-created concrete seawalls and riprap (naturallimestone boulders) shoreline. Since 1985, over 7 miles of unstable unconsolidated fill shoreline and seawalls innorthern and central Biscayne Bay have been stabilized by installing natural limestone boulders to provide im-proved structure habitat.

f. Adjacent marine benthic habitat

The beds of seagrass located outside the barrier islands of the bay function similarly to those within the bay proper.Sand environments are common, especially off Miami Beach. The patch reefs were mapped by Marszalek (1984)and Lidz et al. (1997). Coral recruitment was studied by Miller et al. (2000), and the general ecology was reportedby Voss and Voss (1955). Mobile animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate, move between the bay and nearshorehabitats outside the bay.

Species Of ConcernOne hundred seventy two species occur in Biscayne Bay, its coastal wetlands, or on its barrier islands that are on some list ofprotected species (i.e., federal or state endangered or threatened species, state species of special concern, federal protectedmarine mammal, and federal essential fish habitat). Discussed below are endangered, threatened, or protected species thatrequire special attention: the West Indian manatee, bottlenose dolphin, five sea turtle species, the crocodile, and severalbirds, including the Roseate Spoonbill and the White Ibis. For a more complete list, please consult Table 1, which lists plantand animals species occurring in the bay, its shoreline or adjacent upland habitat.

West Indian Manatee

The West Indian manatee occurs in Biscayne Bay and its tributaries on a year round basis. The number of animals and theirdistribution in the bay varies seasonally, with more than 120 individuals observed in the winter. They have been sightedduring aerial surveys and tracking studies in virtually all parts of the bay system, but are most regularly and consistentlyfound in canals and other tributaries, where they seek freshwater and shelter, and in seagrass beds, which provide a signifi-cant portion of their food. Some channels and artificial waterways also serve as travel corridors for seasonal or daily migra-tions and movements of individual animals.

Red tide and cold stress, the leading causes of natural mortality in manatees, generally do not occur in the Biscayne Bayarea. Therefore, the majority of manatee deaths where cause can be determined are human-related. Miami-Dade County isamong the five Florida counties with highest annual numbers of manatee deaths, averaging more than 10 per year in Miami-Dade County (approximately10 percent of its maximum population per year) in recent years. The leading known cause ofmanatee death in Biscayne Bay and associated water bodies is being crushed or entrapped in flood control gates. Vesselcollision is the second leading cause. Miami-Dade County also has the highest historical levels in the state of other human-related manatee deaths, which include entrapment in drainage pipes, entanglement in fishing line or gear, and poaching(Mayo and Markley 1995, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 1999).Miami-Dade County is one of only four counties statewide that has adopted a state-approved manatee protection plan,which contains recommendations for reducing human-related manatee mortality and maintaining or improving manateehabitat.


Bottlenose dolphinsBottlenosed dolphins in Biscayne Bay consist of permanent residents and nearshore migrants. These are genetically

distinct from an offshore population, which although the same species, is larger than the nearshore groups (Hoelzel et al.1998). In a recent NOAA fisheries study, 167 distinct dolphin individuals have been identified in Biscayne Bay (J. Contillo,Southeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Miami, pers. comm.). Of these, 75 percenthave been re-sighted routinely. The bottlenosed dolphin is a long-lived, resident, predator within the Biscayne Bay ecosys-tem. Within the bay, individual dolphins seem to have well-defined ranges, some in highly urbanized areas and others inmore pristine environments.

The bottlenosed dolphin has a high metabolic rate and has been shown to consume large numbers of prey and tobioaccumulate environmental toxins in various tissues, including the subcutaneous blubber layer. In other locations,scientists have collected subcutaneous blubber to study bioaccumulation of toxicants (Long et al. 2000). Because of thereport of high concentrations of toxicants in parts of Biscayne Bay and contributing waters, determining the status of theBiscayne Bay dolphin population is particularly important. Due to this need, opportunistic biopsy sampling of the BiscayneBay resident dolphin population was begun in February 2000 by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, National MarineFisheries Service, NOAA.

Sea turtlesThe five documented species of sea turtles in Biscayne Bay include loggerhead, green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, and leather-back. The southeast coast of Florida is the largest Atlantic rookery for loggerheads and one of the four major loggerheadrookeries in the world. The Florida green turtle nesting population is significant, although so low that it is listed as “endan-gered.” Nesting surveys are conducted on most ocean and some bay sides of many Biscayne Bay barrier islands.

Biscayne Bay sea turtle strandings from 1980 through 1999 totaled 212 animals, including 107 loggerheads, 79 greens,12 hawksbills, and 14 turtles of unknown taxa. Of these, 36.35 percent showed evidence of boat interaction, 5.7 percentwere entangled in fishing line, and 2.4 percent had tar or oil on the body or within the mouth (W. Teas, Southeast FisheriesScience Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA). In addition, green sea turtles suffer from diseases such asfibropapillomatosis, which has been observed on 40.5 percent of the stranded green sea turtles from 1980 to 1999.Fibropapillomatosis is a tumor-forming, debilitating, and transmissable disease that impedes foraging and movement. Thecause of fibropapillomatosis is poorly understood and needs extensive study.

Sea turtle habitats of concern consist primarily of adequate nesting beaches and foraging habitats (National ResearchCouncil 1990). Seagrass, in particular turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum), crustaceans, and other benthic invertebrates areimportant to various turtle species. While beach-nesting habitat needs protection, there is a less well-recognized need toprotect habitats that are critical to juveniles and sub-adults to ensure population survival. In addition, effort must be made toreduce human-caused sources of mortality. Boaters, fishermen, and pollutants are the cause of many turtle deaths per year inBiscayne Bay (National Research Council 1990).

Crocodiles

Crocodiles were first discovered in Florida in Biscayne Bay. Historically, they occurred throughout the bay, although theydisappeared from much of their former bay habitat in the mid-1970s as important predators. Presently, crocodiles nest at theCrocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge and the Florida Power and Light Turkey Point Power Plant, as well as in FloridaBay (Brandt et al. 1995, Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989). Juvenile crocodiles have an established need for freshwater. Laboratoryexperiments suggest that juvenile crocodiles may not grow to reach maturity without access to water of less than 25-pptsalinity (Dunson 1982), although field observations suggest that hatchlings have rapid growth in some highly saline areas insouth Florida (Mazzotti and Dunson 1984, Mazzotti et al. 1986). The almost continuous fringing mangrove swamp that


extends from the Coral Gables Waterway through Card and Barnes Sounds to Everglades National Park is potential croco-dile nursery habitat, but the value of this area to juvenile crocodiles may have been reduced by past changes in freshwaterflow to the area due to water management. Crocodiles might benefit from the redirection of canal discharges into adjacentfreshwater and coastal wetlands that are presently degraded.

Birds

The Roseate Spoonbill, listed as a state species of special concern, nests in Florida Bay and Card Sound. The primary feedingarea of the eastern Florida Bay and western Card Sound nesting colonies is the coastal wetlands of northeastern Florida Bayand extreme southern Biscayne Bay (Terrapin Point to Turkey Point). The long-term record of nesting suggests that thecolony responds to water management practices that affect these coastal wetlands (Lorenz 1999). The spoonbills aredependent upon production of aquatic forage over broad areas during the wet season that is followed by a gradual, butrelatively steady and predictable, concentration of forage in the dry season, which is their nesting season. Artificial pulses ofwater disperse prey and make it impossible for nesting spoonbills to capture sufficient food to feed rapidly growing young.Restoration of Biscayne Bay’s extreme southern coastal wetlands and their natural pattern of wetting and drying wouldenhance feeding habitat for Roseate Spoonbills.

A nesting colony of White Ibis occurs in the central bay off Key Biscayne at Bear Cut (near the marina) (J. Browder,pers. comm.). White Ibis eat mainly crustaceans. Crustaceans do not osmoregulate and therefore have internal body fluidsthat have the same salinity as their environment. White Ibis nestlings have no mechanism for excluding salt; therefore,successful nesting depends upon access to prey from freshwater wetlands (Bildstein et al. 1990). The colony feeds extensivelyon Virginia Key and may be dependent on the interior wetlands of Virginia Key. In the past, wading birds at the GreynoldsPark colony have been observed feeding in the coastal wetlands of north Biscayne Bay (J. Browder, unpubl. report).

CoralsA number of protected corals occur in Biscayne National Park, which includes Biscayne Bay and nearshore waters outsidethe bay (Table 1). In general, corals are fixed benthic, chiefly colonial animals sensitive to temperature extremes, incursionsof freshwater, turbidity or high particle loads, and various pollutants. They stabilize the bottom sediment, filter the water,and provide habitat for many species. They are extremely sensitive to brown or red tide and plankton blooms. The coralsfound with the bay generally have evolved mechanisms to clean themselves and exclude sediments from occasional turbidityevents. The corals in the bay also tend to be more tolerant of low salinity and wider salinity and temperature fluctuationsthan are reef corals. Direct physical contact by boat and humans on the corals, as well as turbidity produced by boat motorsstirring the bottom, are harmful to corals.

Restoration And Protection Of Living Habitats AndSpecies Of Concern

Coastal wetland, shoreline, and seagrass beds and other benthic habitat such as coral and macroalgae are critically importantto the healthy functioning of the bay ecosystem. These habitats are vital to sustainability into the future of fish and wildlife,including species of concern. Restoration of coastal freshwater sheetflow is the primary factor needed to reinvigorate coastalwetlands. Reduction in physical damage and chemical and physical factors producing turbidity are key to the reestablish-ment of seagrass and preservation of macroalgae and soft and hard coral. Salinity changes in terms of the amount, quality,duration, and location of salinity change may be the key to the future


Projects restoring living habitat in Biscayne Bay and its watershed consist of coral, macroalgae, seagrass, mangrove,coastal wetland, nearshore forest, and dune restoration or enhancement. Hydrologic restoration is planned for the purpose ofrestoring coastal wetland and estuarine habitat and associated fish and wildlife benefits. Goals for restoration include:restoring water clarity, improving circulation, improving water and sediment quality, and improving habitat for fisheries and/or species of concern. This is most successful when the underlying physical features and structural components of the systemsare restored and the natural ecological processes are allowed to occur where natural adjacent communities occur. Whendamaged areas considered for restoration projects are isolated from natural community recruitment, some planting must bedone. Active restoration has been shown to be effective for each of the major habitat types in the bay. Restoration effortsmust be monitored to evaluate their effectiveness, provide quantitative information on relative effectiveness of alternativemethods, and determine resultant improvements in water clarity and fish and wildlife benefits.

Science should continue to address questions about habitat restoration such as: (1) What are the opportunities torestore water clarity, reduce turbidity, and improve circulation, water and sediment quality, fisheries habitat, and habitat forspecies of concern? (2) How effective are present restoration efforts for various habitats important to the bay? (3) Do wehave adequate restoration techniques required for recovery from catastrophic events, human or natural, that might alterlarge segments of benthic habitat? Some of the habitat restoration and enhancement projects that have been conducted orare underway in the Biscayne Bay area are described below, organized according to habitat type. Information about pastrestoration activities in the Bay is outlined according to habitat type in a series of tables (Tables 2-6) associated with thesebrief restoration overview sections. All tables presently have information that is either not available or could not be ob-tained within the time frame of this information gathering effort, but incomplete information was preferable to no informa-tion.

Terrestrial Restoration Efforts1. Upland Restoration Efforts

The largest restoration project in a Florida state park took place at Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park at thesouthern end of Key Biscayne following Hurricane Andrew. This restoration effort included tropical maritimehammock, coastal strand, beach and dune, freshwater marsh and ponds, and mangrove wetlands. The FloridaDepartment of Environmental Protection’s Division of Recreation and Parks initiated the effort, developed theoverall conceptual plan, and provided biological expertise and oversight for restoration activities, includingremoval and control of invading exotic vegetation (Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park 1993, Schroeder 1994,Huck 1995). DERM, the American Littoral Society, and others participated substantially in the implementation ofthis project. Other groups, such as the Tropical Audubon Society, University of Miami Rosenstiel School ofMarine and Atmospheric Science, and DERM, have been involved in monitoring its success.

Other maritime hammock restoration projects have been conducted near Biscayne Bay. DERM has created orrestored over 60 acres of maritime hammock at Oleta River, Bear Cut, on islands in the bay, and in other areas(Milano 2000). Coastal tropical hammocks are seriously in need of restoration because the area covered by coastalhammock was always limited, and over a third has been lost to development (J. Maguire, pers. comm.). See Table 2for examples of upland restoration projects.

2. South Miami-Dade Coastal Wetlands Restoration Efforts

The important functions of coastal wetlands were diminished or lost when the Everglades were diked and thecoastal ridge was drained, eliminating overland flow and reducing groundwater seepage. Efforts to reestablish theopen marsh communities that originally characterized the coastal freshwater wetlands will require either hydrologicrestoration or topographic modification to restore more natural hydroperiods, plus the comprehensive treatment ofinvasive exotic plants throughout the region to restore habitat quality.


Reestablishment of freshwater flow through the Biscayne Bay coastal wetlands is critical to restoring a more naturalquantity, distribution, and timing of freshwater flow to south Biscayne Bay and to restoring the bay’s nursery valuefor estuarine-dependent fishery species. In addition, the acquisition and restoration of the Model Lands-SouthDade Wetlands is critical to preserving the remnants of the coastal transverse glades, which once connected theEverglades to Biscayne Bay.

Restoration of more natural water delivery to South Biscayne Bay to improve the nursery function of the bay is theobjective of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetland Restoration Project, which is one component of the Comprehen-sive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1999). The project will divert a portionof canal flows into nearby coastal wetlands through a spreader swale. The Project also proposes to replace freshwa-ter inflow that is being proposed for rerouting away from the bay. The goal is to restore sheet flow through wetlandsand feed dormant tidal creeks whenever water is available for the Bay within the regional system. The BiscayneBay Coastal Wetland process is not yet underway and requires substantial scientific guidance and information.

As presently proposed, this project covers 13,600 acres from the Deering Estate south to the Florida Power andLight Plant at Turkey Point, generally along L-31E. A major concern is that sufficient water of appropriate qualitymay not be available to support this system. In addition, the planning process for this component is expected totake several years, during which time land may become unavailable for restoration due to development. Immediateidentification and acquisition of necessary land to support this component is critical.

3. Freshwater-Saltwater Coastal Wetlands Restoration Efforts

A great deal is known about wetland restoration (Woodhouse et al. 1976). Restoration projects have been carriedout over the past 6 decades with a wide variety of species, many with great success. Many have occurred in Florida.

Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Regulation (DERM) has restored and enhanced 300 acres ofwetland in and adjacent to Biscayne Bay (Table 3). Included in this is the restoration of 10 acres of isolatedfreshwater wetlands and 75 acres of tidally-connected saltwater wetlands at Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park inaccordance with the comprehensive restoration plan developed under the leadership of the Florida Department ofEnvironmental Regulation, Division of Recreation and Parks. Thus far, 100 percent survival of wetland species isbeing realized (Milano 1999a). Forty bird species have been recorded using the saltwater wetlands, including 18shorebird species, seven egret and heron species, and four tern species. In addition, 12 bird species have beendocumented in the freshwater wetlands (Milano 1999a). The area attracts both least terns, an endangered species,and black-necked stilts, which now successfully nest there every year (R. Skinner, pers. comm., Florida Division ofRecreation an Parks, Key Largo). At least 17 partnerships between DERM and other groups were responsible forthis restoration activity.

3.1. Southeastern Glades Restoration Efforts

The C111 Project, the C111 Spreader Canal Component of CERP, and the Florida Power and LightMitigation Bank are each designed to reestablish sheet flow in parts of the Southeastern Glades and willredistribute freshwater inflow to Biscayne Bay. EEL/SOR and the FPL Mitigation Bank both have exoticplant control components to help restore the native freshwater wetland vegetation of the SoutheastGlades.

3.2. Mangrove Wetlands Restoration Efforts

Mangrove restoration techniques for the Biscayne Bay area were developed in the mid 1970s, and success-ful mangrove planting has been conducted since then (Table 4). Important early examples of independentplanting contractors include H. J. Teas, P. B. Schroeder, J. B. Reark, and Dade Marine Institute at thefollowing sites: Julia Tuttle Causeway, Coral Gables Canals, Cocoplum, Deering Estates, Interama, Baker’sHaulover, Mariner’s Bay, Villa Regina, and Crandon Island. Survival rates ranged from 0 to 100 percent.


Active restoration of mangrove wetlands and other coastal vegetation has been undertaken in BiscayneBay by DERM in collaboration with governmental and non-governmental entities. DERM has restored orenhanced approximately 300 acres of wetlands (mangrove forest, salt marsh, and fresh/brackish waterwetlands) on public lands and has also planted coastal upland communities (Milano 1999b). Mangrovesplanted by DERM in cooperation with other agencies (state of Florida Parks and Recreation, Florida. DEPand federal agencies) between 1980 and 2000 include Bear Cut, Cape Florida State Park, islands in thebay, Oleta River State Park, FIU Campus, Virginia Key, Quayside Island, and Dinner Key Island.

The restoration process of DERM involves archaeological examination of the sites, land recontouring,including modifying land elevations, creating flushing channels, removal of bulkheads and fill, removal ofexotic vegetation, and planting native vegetation (Milano 1999b). DERM has also created wetlands aswell as maritime hammock on spoil islands in the bay that were created when the Intracoastal Waterwaywas dredged (Milano 2000). Vegetative cover and bird life are routinely monitored at all restoration sites.A protocol for monitoring fish and macroinvertebrate use of wetland sites is presently being developed atthe Cape Florida site and, when fully developed, will be expanded to other DERM wetland restorationsites (Milano 1999b).

Benthic Restoration Efforts1. Living Coral and Coral Reefs Restoration Efforts

When compared to the science of mangrove or marsh restoration, which developed 50-100 years ago, the science ofcoral reef and single coral restoration, begun in the 1970s, is relatively recent. Coral restoration efforts haverecently taken place throughout the world (Thorhaug, in press). Coral restoration after damage has been reportedfor the Florida Keys and Hawaii. Results at this early, partly experimental, stage of coral restoration have varied insuccess from 0 to 95 percent. Some successful Biscayne Bay coral projects from 1970s onward are listed in Table 5.Many useful coral restoration techniques were worked out at the Wellwood grounding site off Key Largo (Hudson1988). Soft and hard coral restoration is an area in which more knowledge is imperative.

2. Macroalgae Restoration Efforts

The techniques used to restore macroalgae in Biscayne Bay are in their infancy, although other estuaries haveshown success. Several attempts at restoring calcareous green and red algae Thorhaug and Keller 1972, Thorhaugand Garcia-Gomez 1972, Thorhaug and Voss1974, and Josselyn 1978) have been made to show that this is feasible(Table 5). In certain areas of the world, large-scale macroalgae restoration has been undertaken with significantsuccess. (North and Gerard 1978, Doty 1989).

3. Seagrass Restoration Efforts

Past dredging and filling practices associated with development of the surrounding upland and navigation infra-structure destroyed tens of thousands of acres of seagrass and other benthic habitat. Deepening of broad areas andreduced water clarity prevented recolonization of submerged vegetation. Turbidity, caused by the resulting uncon-solidated bottom sediments, did not allow normal regrowth of seagrass into disturbed areas previously occupied byseagrass, especially in deeper areas.

Lateral growth is normally a chief seagrass method of recolonization in the bay. In the areas of channels andcauseways, lateral expansion of seagrass beds are blocked . This results in several basins remaining highly depauper-ate. Another major means of regrowth is seed dispersal. Only one of the seven seagrasses is known to produceseedlings in north bay, manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme). However, scores of important previously damaged


areas of large size are still without seagrasses after decades of water improvement. These areas have unstabilizedbottom sediment and should be restored with seagrasses.

A series of seagrass plantings and test plots were conducted in Biscayne Bay between the mid 1970s and the mid-1980s (Thorhaug 1974, 1980, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1990, 2001). The larger plantings include Turkey Point (78percent success), Julia Tuttle Causeway (82 percent success), Lake Surprise (95 percent success), and MargaretPace Park (67 percent success), 24th St. NE (up to 87 percent success). The techniques for large-scale seagrassrestoration were first carried out in Biscayne Bay in 1973 at the Turkey Point cooling canal site (Thorhaug 1974).The Turkey Point plantings were later monitored and found to be successful not only in terms of reestablishment ofseagrass (78 percent survival) but also ecologically successful in that the benthic animal community was morediverse and abundant at the planted site than at a nearby control site (McLaughlin et al. 1983).

Extensive seagrass plantings in Biscayne Bay in the 1980s in connection with the Port of Miami expansion werevariably successful. Monitoring of the two initial projects, including a large test plot program with experimentalplantings, indicated survival ranged from 0 to 100 percent (Table 6, Gaby and Langley 1985, Thorhaug, 1985).Three subsequent phases had success rates ranging from 60-87 percent (Thorhaug 1987). Based on a report fromGaby and Langley (1985), alternative mitigation (mangrove planting) was approved for the Port.

In a demonstration project, maintenance dredge material was used by MD-DERM to fill a deep hole. The deepholes in Biscayne Bay created by dredging (Harlem 1979, Wanless et al. 1984) are a source of recurrent localturbidity because they trap flocculent material, which becomes resuspended with increased wave action generatedby vessels or storms (Wanless et al. 1984). Seagrass planting has been generally more successful when restoration isconducted at sites where seagrass communities existed, but were disturbed by physical impacts that can be cor-rected or eliminated (Fonseca 1998). Seagrass restoration has flourished throughout the world in the 1980s and1990s. See Table 6 for example seagrass restoration projects in Biscayne Bay.

Habitat for Species of Concern: Protection Efforts1. Crocodile Habitat Protection Efforts

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the state of Florida have preserved habitat for the saltwatercrocodile by purchase of the north Key Largo area starting at the junction of US 1 and C905 (Card Sound road)extending northward to the Miami-Dade/Monroe County Line (Broad Creek in Biscayne Bay). Florida Power &Light’s Turkey Point nuclear power plant has also participated in preserving crocodile habitat in and adjacent totheir cooling canals.

2. Osprey Nesting Habitat Protection Efforts

The Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management has erected 10 osprey nestingplatforms in north bay island areas. The Florida Power and Light Company has erected osprey nesting platforms innorth bay island areas. The Florida Power and Light Company has erected osprey nesting platforms from U.S.Highway 1 to C-111 along the Card Sound Road. In addition, U.S. Highway 1 from Homestead south has ospreyplatforms.

3. Manatee Habitat Protection Efforts

The state of Florida, DERM and various marinas have participated in preparing and posting signage markingmanatee habitat, and have distributed literature and other information about manatees to boaters. The FloridaDepartment of Environmental Protection established vessel speed zones and other restricted areas to protectparticularly sensitive manatee habitat. Each seagrass restoration project benefits manatees through increase andimprovement in available habitat.


Acquisition and Protection EffortsMiami-Dade County and South Florida Water Management District have purchased some major tracts of coastal wetland inSouth Miami-Dade County. More is slated for purchase in the CARL and Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL)programs. These lands are still vulnerable to development until the process of acquisition is complete. Other lands will likelybe identified for acquisition in the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands component of the Comprehensive Everglades RestorationPlan (CERP).

Recommendations1) Delineate the distribution and quality of benthic marine, coastal wetland, coastal upland species, and species of

special concern.

(Justification: The distribution of benthic environments must be carefully documented prior to freshwater inflow modifica-tions to the bay margin and for comparison to changes that may occur in response to hurricanes, unanticipated pollutionevents and sea level rise.)


a) Evaluate existing maps and quantitative spatial data for accuracy, resolution, and expected needs anddevelop a protocol for the following: map and quantify coverage of benthic communities, includinginfauna, by species composition and density, in areas of soft-sediment seagrass cover, hard bottom, barrenbottom, coastal wetlands, and coastal uplands. Especially focus on the western portions and edge ofBiscayne Bay.

b) Delineate the distribution and density of endangered species and species of special concern in and mar-ginal to Biscayne Bay and their relation the bottom habitat.

c) Compare a) and b) with previous mappings and estimates to determine change. Determine functions andprocesses causing benthic habitat shifts in the bay.

Specific Science-generated Management and Action Recommendationsa) Integrate current and future publicly funded monitoring activities into a coordinated monitoring and

mapping program from Dumfoundling Bay through Biscayne Bay to Manatee Bay, with intensive, detailedobservations in the western nearshore bay.

2) Define the salinity and freshwater inflow parameters (timing, quantity, quality and distribution) that willpermit the reestablishment of a viable estuarine ecosystem in the nearshore and coastal wetland zone ofwestern and northern Biscayne Bay.

(Justification: The loss of an inshore estuarine habitat in Biscayne Bay has degraded the overall quality, diversity andfunctionality of the Biscayne Bay ecosystem. This degradation occurred as the result of historical lowering of water levels andconverting to point source (canal) pulses of freshwater discharge. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan(CERP), which includes a Biscayne Bay Wetlands Restoration component, provides a unique opportunity to coordinate therequirements for reestablishing estuarine conditions in Biscayne Bay with the redesign and replumbing of water flow to theEverglades. It is of the highest priority to take advantage of this opportunity.)


Specific Science Recommendationsa) Define a more natural quantity, quality, timing and distribution of freshwater flow to the wetlands marginal

to western Biscayne Bay.

b) Expedite planning to determine the freshwater budget and land area needed to meet the goals of theBiscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands component of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP).

c) In designing the parameters for this restoration, attention should be given to increasing habitat forendangered species and species of concern and salinity requirements of habitat species on which they aredependent. [Most if not all of these species are discussed in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service South FloridaMulti-species Recovery Plan.]

d) Restore freshwater and saltwater wetlands in association with the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Projectof the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.

e) Provide baseline surveys and continued monitoring of wading bird and migratory bird use of restoredcoastal wetland and estuarine habitat.

Specific Science-generated Management and Action Recommendationsa) Expedite purchase plans for the remaining coastal wetland in south Miami-Dade County slated for

acquisition in the CARL, EEL and other programs, and identify and acquire those additional lands neededbeyond what is in current designs, including especially Bird Key [if it is not already in an acquisition plan].Take appropriate steps to ensure the preservation in perpetuity of publicly owned properties, particularlyVirginia Key (and especially the western shore of Virginia Key north of the marine stadium, now owned bythe City of Miami).

b) Continue to remove exotic species from the intertidal and coastal wetland and upland habitats to createmore area for native habitat species, especially as habitat for species of special concern, and maintain theseareas to prevent reinfestation.

c) In conjunction with restoration, scientific management programs for the bay should be established forendangered species and species of special concern including turtles, manatees, dolphins, crocodiles,seagrasses, and selected birds such as the roseate spoonbill, brown pelican, turkey vulture, and variousshorebirds. [Note: DERM already has a manatee protection plan.] [Coordinate with U.S. Fish and WildlifeService Multi-species Recovery Plan.]

d) Restore coastal fresh to saltwater wetlands form Turkey Point to US1 in cooperation with the FloridaPower and Light Mitigation Bank. Complete acquisition of land available east of US 1 from Palm Drivesouth and restore freshwater flows through these wetlands and into extreme southern Biscayne Bay, CardSound, Barnes Sound and Manatee Bay.

e) Evaluate the potential effect of a change in freshwater flow to north Biscayne Bay.

f) Improve design of floodgates to reduce manatee mortalities.

3) Pursue aggressive efforts that will continue the reduction in turbidity within the waters of central and northernBiscayne Bay and will reduce physical damage to benthic communities and substrate.

(Justification: Biscayne Bay is dominated by benthic communities that need clear water and a substrate that is not physicallydisturbed. Historical changes to the bay, its margins and nature of freshwater inflow have degraded the water clarity andreduced the quality and distribution of Benthic community coverage. Ongoing prop washing and scouring by boats aredamaging the communities.)


Specific Science Recommendationsa) Evaluate the impacts of turbidity on primary productivity and habitats in Biscayne Bay.

b) See section on turbidity in Geology, Sedimentology, and Sea Level portion of the Science Team report.

Specific Science-generated Management and Action Recommendationsa) Finish largely completed stabilization of public vertical seawalls with natural limestone boulders and/or

planters for intertidal vegetation. Develop an incentive program to encourage private property owners toinstall natural limestone boulders in place of, or in front, of bulkheads.

b) Identify and implement ways to reduce or eliminate turbidity and bottom scour of benthic communitiesthat are due to large vessel traffic.

c) Define channels for use by larger boats to enter and egress Biscayne Bay.

d) Mark channels more effectively and improve enforcement next to important species of concern feeding orresting areas and next to important shallow habitat areas such as seagrasses, hard bottom and coral-algalbank fringe communities so that turbidity and direct impact are minimized.

e) Limit turbidity laden effluents into the bay.

4) Conduct ecotoxicology studies to document and monitor stresses and damage to endangered species, species ofspecial concern, and indicator species in benthic habitats. Use this information to guide reduction of pointsource pollution and cleanup of historical contaminant sources.

(Justification: although partly urbanized it is a fundamental goal to restore and maintain Biscayne Bay as a healthy bay for allorganisms who depend on it.)

Specific Science recommendationsa) Continue toxicity monitoring of blood tissue samples of the resident dolphin population of Biscayne Bay as

a health indicator of Biscayne Bay.

b) See recommendations in Water and Sediment Quality portion of the Science Team report.

Specific Science-generated Management and Action Recommendationsa) During and after proposed dredging operations in the Miami River and other channels and canals, use up-

to-date technology to minimize or eliminate movements of contaminated sediment into the bay.

b) Reduce further toxic substance input form upland sources, especially during catastrophic events such asfloods and hurricanes.

c) Review and update hazardous substance, petroleum, and sewage spill plans to make sure these provideadequate protection of habitat and for species of concern.

d) Critically review the risks of leachates to Biscayne Bay from present and past landfills, sewage dischargesites (land, sea and groundwater), and canals. Reconsider the siting of landfills and other waste disposalsites in proximity to the wetlands and waters of Biscayne Bay.


5) Document and compare the functionality and resilience of important benthic habitats throughout Biscayne Bayby conducting comparative turbidity, food web, and fisheries studies in habitats of varying density and speciescomposition (within the various seagrass communities, hard bottom community, coral-algal fringe communityand soft bottom barren and algal mat community).

(Justification: The influence of density and species structure of different benthic habitats in supporting fish populations needsto be documented in order to guide and optimize restoration and protection plans. The role of various types of seagrasses instabilizing sediment also needs to be evaluated. These studies will also serve as a baseline from which the quality of benthiccommunity habitat can be monitored with changes management or following natural and human disasters in the bay.)

Specific Science Recommendationsa) Document and compare the functionality and resiliency of the important benthic habitats throughout

Biscayne Bay by conducting comparative turbidity, food web and fisheries studies in habitats of varyingdensity and species composition (within the various seagrass communities, hard bottom community, coral-algal fringe community and soft bottom barren and algal mat community).

6) Review, develop, and apply scientifically and economically sound methods for restoration and maintenance offreshwater wetland, coastal wetland, coastal upland, and benthic seagrass communities.

(Justification: Methods and approaches to ecological restoration and exotic control must be agreed upon so as to be able toeffectively repair areas of damage and optimize bay restoration efforts.)


a) Hold workshops and, as necessary, conduct demonstration projects and evaluation of previous projects toassess approaches for coastal wetlands, coastal uplands, and seagrass restoration and for control of exoticsin coastal and freshwater wetlands and coastal uplands.

b) Document rates and manner of natural re-establishment over disturbed bottom in different settings indifferent bay sectors so as to establish criteria to define when and how replanting is appropriate andnecessary for maintaining healthy benthic and wetland communities in Biscayne Bay.

c) Review, develop, and apply scientifically sound, cost-effective, and reliable methods to restore seagrasscover on banks damaged by prop scars and scours and sites affected by high turbidity and persistent waveaction (mostly by boats in portions of Biscayne Bay).

Specific Science-generated Management and Action Recommendationsa) Continue ongoing restoration projects at Virginia Key, Chapman Field, Snapper Creek, Bill Baggs State

Recreation Area, and the Oleta River Corridor and support rehydration of Cutler Drain if feasible.

b) Ensure that restoration projects have a funded component that provides for scientific follow up andmonitoring of restoration sites. Sufficient support should be provided for consistent monitoring usingscientifically sound, systematic, and quantitative procedures.

c) Ensure adequate funding for continued maintenance and exotics control on coastal wetland and coastalupland restoration projects.


7) Expand education on value of habitats, species of special concern, threats to the bay and how individuals canmaintain and improve the quality of the habitats and species in Biscayne Bay.

(Justification: Understanding leads to support for efforts to improve the bay and leads to more respectful users of the bay.)

a) Continue public education about the ecosystems losses that result from dumping in and polluting in thebay, damaging benthic habitats by boating activities, and not being respectful of species of concern.Provide information and warnings through dive shop and marina postings, posters, brochures and maps toinform users about habitats, species of special concern, areas to avoid or be watchful, damage caused bydifferent types of boats, and regulations.

b) Enhance education and awareness about manatees, including posting signs in manatee feeding andcongregation zones.

c) Create environmental education centers at specific bayside parks for primary, middle and secondary schoolchildren. Provide labs, full displays about habitats and species of special concern, material for teachers andexhibits, which can circulate into schools. Establish “Science Outposts” with programs and facilities forstudent science research, with pilots at Oleta River and Bill Baggs State Recreational Area. [See fulldescription in recommendations from Education Team.]

d) Create curriculum for elementary schools that discuss habitats and species of concern.

e) Develop or support existing community service programs for cleaning up the bay and its margins.

f) Publicize and enforce laws and rules that prevent damage to the bay’s resources.

g) Mark and enforce manatee-zone speed limits.

REFERENCESAlexander, T. R. and A. G. Crook. 1974. Recent vegetational changes in Southern Florida. Pp. 61-72 In Gleason, P.J. (ed)

Environments of South Florida: Present and Past. Miami Geological Society, Memoir 2.

Alexander, T. R. and A. G. Crook. 1984. Recent vegetational changes in southern Florida. Pp 199-210 in P.J. Gleason (ed.)Environments of South Florida: present and past II. Miami Geological Society, Miami, Florida.

Alleman, R. W. 1983. Biscayne Bay: a survey of past mangrove mitigation/restoration efforts. Metro-Dade County, Florida,Department of Environmental Resources Management. 34 pp.

Alleman, R. W., S. A. Bellmund, D. W. Black, S. E. Formati, C. A. Gove, and L. K. Gulick. 1995. Biscayne Bay SurfaceWater Improvement and Management Plan for Biscayne Bay. Technical Supporting Document and Appendices. SouthFlorida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL.

Ault, J. S., Serafy, J., D. DiResta and J. Dandelski 1997. Impacts on commercial fishing on key habitats within BiscayneNational Park Miami, FL. Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami Ann. Rep. Oncooperative agreement no. CA-5250-6-9018. 80 pp.

Bader, R.G., M. A. Roessler, and A. Thorhaug 1972. Thermal pollution of a tropical marine estuary. Pp. 425-428 In: FAOSymposium on Marine Pollution, Rome. Marine Pollution and Sea Life. Fishing News (Books), Ltd., London.

Bildstein, K. I., W. Post, J. Johnston, and P. Frederick. 1990. Freshwater wetlands, rainfall, and the breeding ecology of whiteibises (Eucinostomus albus) in coastal South Carolina. Wilson Bull. 102:84-98. 1990.


Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park. 1993. Addendum #9 to Unit Management Plan. Bill Baggs Cape Florida State ParkHurricane Recovery and Restoration Plan. Approved by Governor and Cabinet 21 July 1993. 27 pp.

Bjorndahl, K. A. 1980. Nutrition and grazing behavior of the green turtle Chelonia mydas. Marine Biology 56:147-154

Bjorndahl, K. A. (ed.) 1982. The consequences of herbivory for the life history pattern of the Caribbean green turtle,Chelonia mydas. In: Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Proc. World Conf. Sea Turtle Conserv., 26-30 Nov. 1979,Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Inst. Press. 583 pp.

Brandt, L.A., F.J. Mazzotti, J.R. Wilcox, P.D. Barker, Jr., G.F. Hasty, Jr., and J. Wasilewski. 1995. Status of the Americancrocodile (Crocodylus acutus) at a power plant site in Florida, USA. Herpetological Natural History. 3:29-36.

Chardon, R.1976. A geographical history of the Biscayne Bay area. pp.235-246 In: Biscayne Bay Past, Present, Future. (A.Thorhaug ed.) University of Miami Press. 350 pp.

Coyne, M. S. 1994. Feeding ecology of subadult green sea turtles in south Texas waters. M.S. Thesis, Texas A&M Univer-sity, College Station.

Den Hartog, C. 1974. Seagrasses of the World. Elsevier Press. Leiden. 125 pp.

Doty, M., 1989. A review of Gracilaria farming. Aquaculture 78 (2):95-133.

Dunson, W. A. 1982. Salinity relations of crocodiles in Florida Bay. Copeia 1982(2):374-385.

Egler, F.E. 1952. Southeast saline Everglades. Florida and its management. Vegetatio Acta Geob. 3: 213-225.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 1999. Save the Manatee Trust Fund Fiscal Year 1998-1999. AnnualReport. 16 pp.

Fonseca, M. S. 1996. The role of seagrasses in nearshore sedimentary processes: a review. Pp. 261-286 In: K. F. Nordstromand C. T. Roman (eds.) Estuarine Shores: Evolution, Environments and Human Alterations. John Wiley & Sons, NewYork.

Fonseca, M. S., W. J. Kenworth, and G. W. Thayer. 1992. Seagrass beds: nursery for coastal species. Pp. 141-147 In: R. H.Stroud (ed.) Stemming the Tide of Coastal Fish Habitat Loss. Proceedings of a Symposium on Conservation of CoastalFish Habitat, Baltimore, Maryland, 7-9 March 1991. Marine Recreational Fisheries No. 14. Published by the NationalCoalition for Marine Conservation, Inc., Savannah, GA.

Fonseca, M. S., W. J. Kenworthy, and G. W. Thayer. 1998. Guidelines for the Conservation and Restoration of Seagrasses inthe United States and Adjacent Waters. 1998. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 12.NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, MD. 222 pp.

Gaby, R. and S. Langley, 1985. Seagrass mitigation for the Port of Miami, In Conf. Of Wetland Mitigation, HillsboroghJunior College, Tampa

Gaby, R., S. Langley, and R. Keoghe.1986. Seagrass mitigation for the Port of Miami with Management Considerations.International Conference of Dredging.

Ginsburg, R. N. and H. A. Lowenstam. 1958. The influence of marine bottom communities on the depositional environ-ment of sediments. Journal of Geology 66:310-318.

Harlem, P.W. 1979.Aerial photographic interpretation of historical changes in northern Biscayne Bay, Florida 1925-1976.Sea Grant Tech. Bull. 40:151 pp

Hoelzel, AR. C.W. Potter, and P.B. Best. 1998. Genetic differentiation between paratactic “nearshore “ and “offshore”populations of bottlenose dolphin. Proc. Roy. Sco. Lond. 265: 1177-1183.


Huck, R. A. 1995. A centennial review: the historic natural landscape of Key Biscayne, Dade County, Florida. FloridaScientist. 17 pp.

Hudson, J. H. 1988. Damage survey and restoration of M/V Wellwood grounding site, Molasses Reef, Key Largo NationalMarine Sanctuary, Florida. Pp. 231-236 In: J. H. Coat, D. Barnes, et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th International CoralReef Symposium, 8-12 August 1988, Townsville Australia. Vol. 2: Contributed Papers.

Hudson, H. 1996. Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park coral relocation and transplanting project. Final Report. Reef TechInc., Miami, Florida.

Hudson, J. H. and W. B. Goodwin. 1997. Restoration and growth rate of hurricane-damaged pillar coral (Dendrogyracylindrus) in the Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, Florida. Pp. 567-570 In: Proceedings of the 8th InternationalCoral Reef Symposium, Panama.

Hudson, J. H., D. M. Robbin, J.T. Tilmant, and J. L. Wheaton. 1989. Building a coral reef in southeast Florida; combiningtechnology and aesthetics. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44:1067-1068.

Iversen, E. S. and G. L. Bearsley. 1974. Impacts of sand dredging on the fauna of a submerged bar south of Key Biscayne,Florida. University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science Report. Miami, FL.

Josselyn, M.A. 1978. Red Algae, Laurencia. MA Thesis, University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and AtmosphericScience. 135 pp.

Kushlan, J.A. and F.J. Mazzotti. 1989. Historic and present distribution of the American crocodile in Florida. J. Herp. 23:1-7.

Lidz, B. H, E. A. Shinn, M. E. Hansen, R. B. Halley, M. W. Harris, S. D. Locker, and A. C. Hine. 1997. Maps showingsedimentary and biological environments, depth to Pleistocene bedrock, and Holocene sediment and reef thicknessfrom Molasses Reef to Elbow Reef, Key Largo, South Florida. U.S. Geological Survey Investigative Series Map #1-25-5,3 sheets.

Long, E. R., G. M. Sloane, G. I. Scott, B. Thompson, R. S. Carr, J. Biedenbach, T. L. Wade, R. J. Presley, K. J. Scott, C.Mueller, G. Brecken-Fols, B. Albrecht, J. W. Anderson, and G. T. Chandler. 2000. Magnitude and extent of chemicalcontamination and toxicity in sediments of Biscayne Bay and vicinity. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCAxxx. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, MD.

Lorenz, J. J., J. C. Ogden, R. D. Bjork, and G. V. N. Powell. 1999. Nesting patterns of Roseate Spoonbills in Florida Bay1950-1999: implications of landscape scale anthropogenic impacts. [Abstract] pp. 55-56 In: 1999 Florida Bay andAdjacent Marine Systems Science Conference, Programs and Abstracts, 1-5 November 1999, Key Largo, FL, Universityof Florida, Gainesville.

Markley, S. and G. Milano. 1985. Biscayne Bay Restoration and Enhancement Program. Summary Report of the Metro-Dade County Environmental Resources Management.

Marszalek, D. S. 1984. [Map of the] Florida Reef Tract: marine habitats and ecosystems. University of Miami RosenstielSchool of Marine and Atmospheric Science CaqII Number Maps 020-029. Miami, FL.

Mayo, K. E. and S. M. Markley. 1995. Dade County Manatee Protection Plan. DERM Technical Report 95-5. 122pp. +appendices.

Mazzotti, F. J. and W. A. Dunson. 1984. Adaptations of Crocodylus acutus and alligator for life in saline water. Comp.Biochem. Physiol. 79A(4):641-646.

Mazzotti, Frank J., B. Bohnsack, M. P. McMahon, and J. R. Wilcox. 1986. Field and laboratory observations on the effects ofhigh temperature and salinity on hatchling Crocodylus acutus. Herpetologica 42(2):191-196.


McLaughlin, P. A., S. F. Treat, A. Thorhaug, and R. Lemaitre. 1983. A restored sea grass (Thalassia) bed and its animalcommunity. Environmental Conservation 10: 247-254.

McNulty, J. K. 1970. Effects of abatement of domestic sewage pllution in the benthos, volumes on zooplankton and foulingorganisms of Biscayne Bay, Florida. University of Miami Studies in Tropical Oceanography 9:107 pp.

McNulty, J. K., R. C. Work, and H. B. Moore. 1962a. Level sea bottom communities in Biscayne Bay and neighboring areas.Bulletin of Marine Science 12:204-233.

McNulty, J. K., R. C. Work, and H. B. Moore. 1962b. Some relaitonships between the infauna of the level bottom and thesediment in south Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science 12:322-332.

Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management. 1983. Bottom communities of Biscayne Bay.Map. Published in cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (now FDEP) and the U.S.Department of Interior, National Park Service, South Florida Research Center (now South Florida Natural ResourcesCenter).

Milano, G. R.1999a. Cape Florida State Recreation Area wetlands restoration. Pp 110-119. In P.J. Cannizzaro (ed.) Proceed-ings of the 25th Annual Conference on Ecosystem Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa,Fl.

Milano, G. R.1999b. Restoration of coastal wetlands in southeastern Florida. Wetland Journal 11(2):15-24.

Milano, G. R. 2000. Island restoration and enhancement in Biscayne Bay, Florida, Pp. 1-17. In P.J. Cannizzaro (ed.) Pro-ceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Ecosystem Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community College,Tampa, Fl.

Miller, B., A. Thorhaug, B. Jupp, and F. Booker. 1985. Effects of a variety of impacts on seagrass restoration in Jamaica.Marine Pollution Bulletin 16(9):355-360.

Miller, M. W., E. Weil, and A. M. Szmant. 2000. Coral recruitment and juvenile mortality as structuring factors for reefbenthic communities in Biscayne National Park, USA. Coral Reefs 19(2):15-123.

National Research Council. 1990. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention. National Academy Press. Washing-ton, D.C. 280 pp. (sea turtles p.15-16)

North, W. J. and V. A. Gerard.1978. Restoration of kelp for biomass. HydroBiolog.116:321-4.

Onuf, C. P. 1996. Seagrass responses to long-term light reduction by brown tide. Mar. Ecol. 130:219-231.

Patriquin, D.G. 1975. “Migration” of blowouts in seagrass beds at Barbados and Carriacou, West Indies, and its ecologicaland geological applications. Aquatic Botany 1:163-189.

Reark, J.B. 1975. A history of the colonization of mangroves on a tract of land on Biscayne Bay, Florida. Pp. 776-804 In:Proceedings of 1st International Symposium on Biology and Management of Mangroves, University of Florida Press,Gainesville, FL.

Robertson, W.J., Jr. 1955. An analysis of the breeding-bird population of tropical Florida in relation to the vegetation. PhD.Thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana.

Robertson, W. J., Jr. and P. C. Frederick. 1994. The faunal chapters: contexts, synthesis, and departures. Pp. 709-737 In: S.M. Davis and J. C. Ogden (eds.) Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL.

Robblee, M.,S.D. Jewell and T.W. Schmidt.1991. Temporal and spatial variation in pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum inFlorida Bay and adjacent water of Everglades National Park. Ann. Rep. South Florida Research Center. Everglades,


National Park. Homestead , Fl. 29 pp.

Roessler, M.A., A. Thorhaug, and D. Tabb. 1976. The Effects of Man’s Activities on the Ecology of Biscayne Bay. In. A.Thorhaug and A. Volker (eds.) Biscayne Bay: Past Present and Future. Biscayne Bay Symposium I. University of MiamiSea Grant Program Special Report 5. University of Miami. 315 pp.

Ross, M. S., J. F. Meeder, J. P. Sah, P. L. Ruiz, and G. J. Telesnicki. 2000. The Southeast Saline Everglades revisited: 50 yearsof coastal vegetation change. Journal of Vegetation Science 11(1):101-112.

Schroeder, P.B., 1979. Report on Mangrove Planting at Cocoplum. Final report to Florida Department of Natural Resources(now FDEP).

Schroeder, P. 1994. Draft plant restoration plan for Cape Florida SRA. Florida Department of Environmental Protection,Division of Recreation and Parks. 79 pp.

Sheridan, P. B. 1992. Comparative habitat utilization of estuarine macrofauna within the mangrove ecosystem of RookeryBay, Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science. 50: 21-39.

Snyder, J. R., A. Herndon, and W. B. Robertson, Jr. 1992. South Florida Rockland. Pp. 230-274. In R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel.(eds.) Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Press, Orlando, Florida.

Teas, H. J. 1977. Ecology and restoration of mangrove shorelines in Florida. Environmental Conservation 4:51-58.

Teas, 1990. Report on Deering Estate Planting. Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Teas, H. J., H. R. Wanless, and R. E. Chardon, 1976. Effects of man on the shore vegetation of Biscayne Bay,. Pp. 133-156In: A. Thorhaug and A. Volker (eds.) Biscayne Bay: Past/Pesent/Future: Biscayne Bay Symposium I., University ofMiami Sea Grant Special Report 5. University of Miami Sea Grant Program, Coral Gables, Florida.

Thorhaug, A., 1974. Transplantation of the seagrass Thalassia testudinum Konig. Aquaculture 4:177-183.

Thorhaug, A. 1978 .techniques for creating seagrasses meadows in damaged areas along the southeastern United States.Dept of Interior Bull . Pp. 58-62 In: W. Swanks, (ed.) Environmental Parameters and Vegetational Establishment onDisturbed Coastal Sites. U.S. Dept of Interior. 210 pp

Thorhaug, 1980. “Environment, management of a highly impacted, urbanized tropical estuary: rehabilitation and restora-tion.” Helgolander wiss. Meeresuntersuchungen 33: 614-623.

Thorhaug, 1983. Habitat restoration after pipeline construction in a tropical estuary: seagrasses. Marine Pollution Bulletin14(11):422-425.

Thorhaug, A. 1985. Large-scale Seagrass Restoration in a damaged estuary. Biscayne Bay. Marine Pollution Bulletin.16(2):55-62.

Thorhaug, 1986. Seagrass restoration. AMBIO. Journal of the Human Environment. 15(2):108-115.

Thorhaug, A. 1987. Large-scale seagrass restoration in a damaged estuary. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(8):442-446.

Thorhaug, A. 2001. The comparison of seagrass restoration test plots in a highly impacted estuary: Biscayne Bay. AmericanJournal of Botany 33 (7)

Thorhaug, A. In press. Restoration of coastal habitats in the world’s tropics and subtropics. United Nations Journal.

Thorhaug, A. and J. Garcia-Gomez. 1972. Preliminary laboratory and field growth studies of the Laurencia complex. Journalof Phycology, Supplement 8:10.


Thorhaug, A. and K. F. Keller. 1972. Laboratory and field growth studies of four green calcareous algae. 1. Preliminaryresults. Journal of Phycology, Supplement 8:10.

Thorhaug, A. and R. Hixon. 1975. Revegetation of Thalassia testudinum in a multiple-stressed estuary, north Biscayne Bay,Florida. Pp.12-27 In: R.R. Lewis (ed.). Proc. Second Annual Conf. on Restoration of Coastal Vegetation in Florida.Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL.

Thorhaug, A. and M. A. Roessler. 1977. Seagrass community dynamics in a subtropical estuarine lagoon. Aquaculture12:253-277.

Thorhaug, A. and G. Voss. 1974. The effect of heated effluents on the marine biology of southeastern Florida. Pp. 518-531In: J. J. Gibons and R. Sharitz (eds.) Thermal Ecology Atomic Energy Commission Symposium Series (730505).

Thorhaug, A., E. Man, and H. Ruvin, 1990. Biscayne Bay Restoration. Pp. 192-195 In: A. Berger (ed.) Healing the Earth.Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Tropical BioIndustries, Inc.1990. Hydroperiod Conditions of Key Environmental Indicators of Everglades National Park andAdjacent East Everglades Areas as a Guide to Selection of an Optimal Water Plan for Everglades National Park, Florida.Final Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in fulfillment of Contract No. DACW 17-84-C-0031.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1999. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. (CERP). Jacksonville, Florida.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Technical summary document for the advance identification of possiblefuture disposal sites and areas generally unsuitable for disposal of dredged or fill material in wetlands adjacent tosouthwest Biscayne Bay, Dade County, Florida. EPA Technical Report 904/R-94/007 (Miami-Dade County Departmentof Environmental Regulation Technical Report 94-20. Environmental Protection Agency IV. Atlantic, GA. 93 pp. +appendices.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Florida manatee recovery accomplishments. 1999 annual report. 34 pp.

Voss, G. L. and N. A. Voss. 1955. An ecological survey of Soldier Key, Biscayne Bay, Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science5:203-229.

Wanless, H. R. 1975. Sedimentary dynamics and significance of sea grass beds. Florida Scientist 38, Supplement 1: 20.

Wanless, H. R., D. J. Cottrell, R. W. Parkinson, and E. Burton. 1984. Sources and circulation of turbidity, Biscayne Bay,Florida. Final Report to Dade County and Florida Sea Grant. University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine andAtmospheric Science. 499 pp.

Wanless, H. R, D. J. Cottrell, M. G. Tagett, L. P. Tedesco, and E. R. Warzeski. 1995. Origin and growth of carbonate banksin South Florida. Pp. 439-473 In: C. L. V. Monty, D. W. J. Bosence, P. H. Bridges, and B. R. Pratt (eds.) Carbonate mud-mounds; their origin and evolution. Special Publication No. 23 of the International Association of Sedimentologists.Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.

Wood, E. F., W. E. Odum, and J. C. Zieman. 1969. Influence of sea grasses on the productivity of coastal lagoons. Pp. 495-502 In: A. A. Ayala-Castanares and F. B. Phleger (eds.) Lagunas costeras, un simposio; memoria del SimposioInternacional sobre Lagunas Costeras..Mexico, D.F. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.

Woodhouse, W. W., Jr. E. D. Seneca, and S. W. Broome. 1976. Propagation and use of Spatoina alterniflora for shorelineerosion abatement. Tech. Rep., Coast. Eng. Res. Cent., TR 76-2. U.S. Army, Coastal Engineer Res. Cent., Fort Belvoir,Virginia.

Zieman, J. C. 1978. Quantitative and dynamic aspects of the ecology of turtle grass, Thalassia testudinum. Pp 541-562 In: L.E. Cronin (ed.) Estuarine Research Vol. I. Academic Press, New York.


Zieman, J.C. 1982. The ecology of the seagrasses of South Florida: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/85-82/25. 158 pp.


Common Name Scientific Name Federal State Habitat

Bay & Intertidal Animals

Mammals

West Indian manatee Triechus manatus E E Fresh to marine water,Seagrass

Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus MMPA Bay

Reptiles

Crocodilians

American alligator Alligator mississippiensis SSC Freshwater Estuarine

American crocodile Crocodylus acutus E E Estuarine

Turtles

Atlantic loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta T T Marine/beach

Atlantic green turtle Chelonia mydas E E Marine/beach

Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea E E Marine/beach

Atlantic hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata imbircata E E Marine/beach

Atlantic Ridley turtle Lepidochelys kempi E E Marine/beach

TABLE 1 - species tableEndangered and Threatened Species, Species of Special Concern, and

Protected Species Found in Biscayne Bay and Adjacent Coastal Wetland andUpland Habitats

Names and status follow Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission 1- August- 1997 Official Lists and September 21,2000 WWW listings. The federal lists of Endangered (E) and threatened (T) plants and animals are administered by theUSFWS and are published in 50 CFR 17 (animals) and 50 CFR 23 (plants). The Florida animal lists of endangered (E),threatened (T) and species of special concern (SSC) are maintained by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commissionand constitute Rules 39-27.003, 39-27.004 and 39-27.005 respectively. Plant lists of endangered (E) threatened (T) andthreatened by commercial exploitation (C) species are maintained by the Department of Agriculture and ConsumerServices via Chapter 5B-40 FAC. Sea mammals are protected by federal law under the Marine Mammal Protection Act(MMPA) administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA). Seagrasses, mangroves, and other species aredesignated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, as required under thefederal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management Act, also administered by NMFS/ NOAA. All corals occurring within theboundaries of Biscayne Bay National Park (BBNP) are protected.



Bay Birds Birds

Roseate spoonbill Ajaia ajaja SSC Coastal marshMangrove

Limpkin Aramus guarauna SSC Marshes

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea SSC Marshes Mangroves

Reddish egret Egretta rufescens SSC Coastal marsh

Snowy egret Egretta thula SSC Marsh mangrove

Louisiana heron Egretta tricolor SSC Marsh mangrove

White ibis Eudocimus albus SSC Marshes mangroves

Arctic peregrine falcon Falco sparverius tundrius E Migratory

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T T Forests, open water

Wood stork Mycteria americana SSC Mangrove, open water

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis SSC Mangrove, open water

Black skimmer Rynchops niger SSC Open water

Least tern Sterna antillarum T T Beaches, open water

Bay Fish Fishes

Common snook Centropomus undecimalis SSC Fresh to marine water

Mangrove rivulus Rivulus marmoratus Mangrove

Bay & Intertidal Plants

Bay seagrasses Seagrasses

Turtle grass Thalassia testudumun EFH Bay

Cuban shoal grass Halodule wrightii EFH Bay

Manatee grass Syringodium filiforme EFH Bay

Johnson’s paddlegrass Halophila johnsonii E E Bay

Engelman’s paddlegrass Halophila engelmanii EFH Bay

Paddlegrass Halophila decipiens EFH Bay

Widgeon grass Ruppia maritima EFH Bay

Bay mangroves Mangroves

Black mangrove Avicennia germinans EFH Mangrove

Red mangrove Rizophora mangle EFH Mangrove

White mangrove Laguncularia racemosa EFH Mangrove



Bay corals Corals

Acropora cervicomis BBNP Offshore

Acropora palmata BBNP Offshore

Agaricia agaricites complex BBNP Offshore

Agaricia fragilis BBNP Offshore

Colpophyllia natans BBNP Offshore

Dichocoenia stokesii BBNP Offshore

Diploria clivosa BBNP Offshore

Diploria labyrinthiformis BBNP Offshore

Diploria strigosa BBNP Offshore

Eusmilia fastigiata BBNP Offshore

Favia fragum BBNP Offshore

Leptoseris cucullata BBNP Offshore

Madracis decactis BBNP Offshore

Meandrina meandrites BBNP Offshore

Millepora alcicornis BBNP Offshore, Bay

Millepora complanata BBNP Offshore, Bay

Montastraea cavernosa BBNP Offshore

Mussa angulosa BBNP Offshore

Mycetophyllia aliciae BBNP Offshore

Mycetophyllia danaana BBNP Offshore

Mycetophyllia ferox BBNP Offshore

Oculina diffusa BBNP Offshore, Bay

Porites astreoides BBNP Offshore, Bay

Porites porites BBNP Offshore, Bay

Scolymia lacera BBNP Offshore

Siderastrea radians BBNP Offshore, Bay

Siderastrea siderea BBNP Offshore, Bay

Solenastrea bournoni BBNP Offshore, Bay

Stephanocoenia michelinii F S



Coastal Animals

Watershed mammals Mammals

Florida Mastiff Bat Eumopus glaucinus floridanus E coastal forest

Florida Panther Felis concolor coryi E E coastal forest

Key Largo woodrat Neotoma floridana smalli E E hammock edge

Silver rice rat Oryzomys argentatus E E marsh

Key Largo cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus allaparticola E E hammock

Snakes

Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi T T pine, hammock, scrub

Atlantic saltmarsh snake Nerodia fasciata taeniata T T Coastal marsh

Miami black-headed snake Tantilla oolicta T Hammock

Turtles and tortoises

Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus SSC scrub/pine

Birds

Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis E E Freshwater marsh

White-crowned pigeon Columba leucocephala T Hammock

Bachman’s warbler Verivora bachmanii E E Migratory

Southeastern American kestrel Falco sparverius paulus T pine rockland open

Snail kite Rosthamus sociabilis E E marsh. tree island

Invertebrates

Florida tree snail Liguus fasciatus SSC hammock edge

Schaus’ swallowtail butterfly Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus E E Hammock

Coastal Plants

Golden leather fern Acrostichum aureum E mangrove edge

Giant leather fern Acrostichum danaeifollium C mangrove wetlands

Brittle maidenhair fern Adiantum tenerum E Hammock

Alvaradoa Alvaradoa amorphoides E pine rockland

Crenulate lead plant Amorpha crenulata E E pine rockland

Sea lavender Argusia = Tournefortia gnaphalodes E beach dunes

Bird’s nest spleenwort Asplenium serratum E Hammock

Slender spleenwort Asplenium trichomanes-dentatum E Hammock



Delicate spleenwort Asplenium verecundum E Hammock

Pine pink orchid Bletia purpurea T marshes edges

Florida brickell-bush Brickellia eupatotoides v floridana E pine rockland

Locust berry Byrsonima lucida E pine rockland

Long strap fern Campylocentrum phyllitidus E Hammock

Wild cinnamon Canella winteriana E Hammock

Powdery catopsis Catopsis berteroniana E Hammock tree islands

Deltoid spurge Chamaesyce deltoidea deltoidea E E pine rockland

Satinleaf Chrysophyllum oliviforme E hammock

Pitch apple Clusea rosea E coastal strand

Silver palm Cocothrinax argentata E pine rockland

Geiger tree Cordia sebesttena E hammock

Christmas berry Crossopetalum illicifolium E pine rockland

Rhacoma Crossopetalum rhacoma E hammock

Florida tree fern Ctenitis sloanei E hammock

Brown-hair comb fern Ctenitis submarginalis E hammock

Beach star Cypress pedunculatus E beach dune

Florida pineland crabgrass Digitaria pauciflora E pine rockland

Dollar orchid Encyclia boothiana E mangrove fringe

Clamshell orchid Encyclia cochleata E hammock

Butterfly orchid Encyclia tampensis C hammock mangrove

Night-scented orchid Epidendrum nocturnum E hammock

Rigid epidendrum Epidendrum rigidum E hammock

One-nerved ernodea Ernodea cokeri E hammock

Beach creeper Ernodea littoralis T beach dune, pinelands

Redberry stopper Eugenia confusa E hammock

Red stopper Eugenia rhombea E hammock

Wild coco Eulophia alta T hammock edges

Small’s milkpea Galactia smallii E E pine rockland

Helmet orchid Galeandra beyrichii E pine rockland edge

Wild cotton Gossypium hirsutum E coastal strand



Lignum vitae Guaiacum sanctum E open hammock

Sea Oats Uniola poaniculata Yes Shorelines dunes

Sea Grapes Cocolobus oscifera Yes Shoreline coastal shand

Manchineel Hippomane mancinella E Coastal strand

Krug’s holly Ilex krugiana E hammock

Man-in-the ground Ipomoea microdactyla E pine rockland

Rockland morning glory Ipomoea tenuissima E pine rockland

Pineland clustervine Jaquemontia curtissii E pine rockland

Beach clustervine Jaquemontia reclinata E E beach dune coastal strand

Joewood Jacquinia keyensis T mangrove edge

Pineland lantana Lantana depressa E pine rockland

South Florida flax Linum carteri E pine rockland

Small-leaf melanthera Melanthera parvifolia E pine rockland

Giant sword fern Nephrolepis biserrata T hammock

Burrowing four-o-clock Okenia hypogaea E beach dune

Hand fern Ophioglossum = Cheiroglossa palmatum E hammock

Shell mound prickly Opuntia stricta T beach strandpear cactus

Royal fern Osmunda regalis C marsh/tree island

Ribbon fern Paltonium (Neurodium) lanceolatum E hammock

Florida peperomia Peperomia obtusifolia E hammock

Pineland poinseta Poinsettia pinetorum E pine rockland

Small’s milkwort Polygala smalii E E pine rockland

Pale-flowered polystachya Polystachya flavescens E hammock

Buccaneer palm Pseudophoenix sargentii sargentii E coastal hammock

Cretan brake fern Pteris bahamensis E pineland/ edges

Bahama sachsia Sachsia polycephala = bahamensis E pine rockland

Inkberry Scaevola plumieri T coastal dune

Bay cedar Suriana maritima E coastal strand

West Indian mahogany Swietenia mahogani E hammock

Least halberd fern Tectaria fimbriata T hammock



Broad halberd fern Tectaria heracleifolia E hammock

West Indian lilac Tetrazygia bicolor T pine rockland

Abrupt-tipped maiden fern Thelypteris augescens T hammock

Creeping star hair fern Thelypteris reptens E hammock

Brittle thatch palm Thrinax morrissii E hammock

Florida thatch palm Thrinax radiata E coastal strand

Reflexed wild pine Tillandsia balbisiana T hammock/ pine

Stiff-leafed wild pine Tillandsia fasciculata E hammock/ pine

Twisted wild pine Tillandsia flexuosa E coastal strand

Giant wild pine Tillandsia utriculata E hammock/ pine

Soft-leafed wild pine Tillandsia valenzuelana T hammock

Florida noseburn Tragia saxicola E pine rockland

Krause’s bristle fern Trichomanes krausii E hammock

Florida bristle fern Trichomanes punctatum E hammock

Florida gamma grass Tripsacum floridanum E pine rockland

Young palm orchid Tropidia polystachya E hammock

Worm-vine orchid Vanilla barbellata E hammock mangroves

Vanilla orchid Vanilla planifolia E hammock

Florida coontie Zamia pumila C pine rockland

Biscayne prickly ash Zanthoxylum coriaceum E beach strand


FDR

P=F

lorid

a D

epar

tmen

t of E

nviro

nmet

al P

rote

ctio

n, F

lorid

a D

ivis

ion

of R

ecre

atio

n an

d P

arks

;B

BC

FSR

A=B

ill B

aggs

Cap

e Fl

orid

a S

tate

Rec

reat

ion

Are

a;M

D-D

ER

M=M

iam

i-Dad

e C

ount

y E

nviro

nmen

tal R

esou

rces

Man

agem

ent;

US

AC

E=U

.S. A

rmy

Cor

ps o

f Eng

inee

rs;

US

FS=U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of A

gric

ultu

re, U

.S. F

ores

t Ser

vice

;U

SS

BA

=U.S

. Sm

all B

usin

ess

Adm

inis

tratio

n;FI

ND

=Flo

rida

Inla

nd N

avig

atio

n D

istri

ct;

BB

EE

TF=M

iam

i-Dad

e C

ount

y B

isca

yne

Bay

Env

ironm

enta

l Enh

ance

men

t Tru

st F

und;

*Hig

h: >

66%

, Med

ium

: <33

%<6

6%, L

ow: <

33%

TABLE

2-re

stora

tion e

xamp

leR

esto

rati

on o

f sc

rub,

bea

ch d

une

& m

arit

ime

ham

moc

k in

Bis

cayn

e B

ay—

sele

cted

exa

mpl

es/ec

nerefeR

noit

utitsnI

noit

utitsnI

noit

utitsnI

noit

utitsnI

noit

utitsnI

noitac

oL

stin

uf

ore

bm

uN

fo

eziS

/det

nalp

fo

eziS

/det

nalp

fo

eziS

/det

nalp

fo

eziS

/det

nalp

fo

eziS

/det

nalp

derotser

aerader

otseraera

derotser

aerader

otseraera

derotser

aera

fo

epy

T/seice

pS

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Hf

olavivr

uS

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stifene

befil

dliW

gni

dn

uF

/tso

Cecr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

S

3991A

RS

FC

BB

4991redeorhc

S5991

kcuH

1002A

RS

FC

BB

PR

DF

tfarD

adirolF

epaC

,kraP

etatS

,enyacsiB

yeK

yaBlartne

C

gnolaserca

52lla

waesserca

051~

lanaC

seniP

serca7

~

laciportevita

Nsdoo

wdrahkco

mma

He

mitiraM

sneperaonere

Sdna

srehtodnart

SlatsaoC

ittoillesuni

P.rav

sneda

dnaleniP

hgihdeta

mitsE

tontub

derusaemn

Uhgih

sa

yrotargiM

eniressaP

lacol,sk

wah&

sdriB

sdrib

000,049,5$,

%65-E

CA

SU

,%72-

SF

SU

,%9-

AB

SS

U-erutalsigeL

adirolF

%8

:stne

mm

oC

gnidnatsfolavo

merdna

yevruslaireA

;)000,063,3$(werdn

Aenacirru

Hyb

dellefnoitategev

citoxefo

gnippihcdna

punaelclaitinI.)002,441$(

erutcurtsarfniyresrun

dnaerutcurtsarfni

gniretaW

;)008,304,2$(:noitallatsni

dnalairetam

tnalpdnalp

U;)002,23$(

:scitoxe.noitarotser

evorgnam

rodnalte

wot

tondna

ylnodnalpu

otsetaler

tsoC

MR

ED

:0002onali

MsdnalsIliop

Sdna

yaB

htroN

.yaBlartne

C81

otrefer

slatoT

derrefer,sdnalsi

dnae

manyb

ottaht

,rebmun

serca17latot

serca3.23

serca02

elim

8.1

laciportevita

Ne

mitiraM

sdoowdrah

latsaoC

kcom

maH

enuD

dnartS

yliramir

P000,086,3$

dna%34-

DNI

F,

%44-F

TE

EB

B%7-tropae

S-D

M,

%4-P

ED

F%1-

DM

WF

S

:stne

mm

oC

foseli

mraenil

3,serca

3.95no

scitoxefo

gniraelcevitceles

,)4elba

Tees(

tnemecnahne

dnanoitarotser

evorgnam

sedulcniosla

tsoC

.smroftalp

yerpsofo

noitceredna

,)sesace

mosni

evorgnam

htiw(

sredluobkcore

milhti

wnoitazilibats

enilerohs


Table

2BC

reat

ion

of h

abit

at a

nd s

hore

line

stab

iliza

tion

on

spoi

l isl

ands

in B

isca

yne

Bay

, by

Mia

mi-

Dad

e C

ount

y

Dep

artm

ent o

f Env

iron

men

tal R

esou

rces

Man

agem

ent—

sele

cted

exa

mpl

es (

Mila

no 2

000)

.

IDN

ame

Siz

e A

cres

Dun

e, li

n. ft

.C

oast

alM

ariti

me

Man

grov

eM

angr

ove

Man

grov

eS

hore

line

Exo

tics

Cos

tFu

ndin

g ag

ency

stra

ndha

mm

ock

plan

ted

plan

ted

enha

ncem

ent

stab

iliza

tion

clea

red

acre

sac

res

units

acre

sac

res

lin. f

tac

res

1Te

ache

rs Is

land

3.7

960

335

03

140,

000

FIN

D-5

0%B

BE

ETF

-50%

2M

orni

ngsi

de Is

land

480

02.

550

04

290,

000

FIN

D-5

0%B

BE

ETF

-50%

3O

spre

y Is

land

590

02.

550

00.

20.

510

002.

821

0,00

0FI

ND

-50%

BB

EE

TF-5

0%

4M

angr

ove

Isla

nds

2.8

2.8

5,00

0FI

ND

-50%

BB

EE

TF-5

0%

5Fr

igat

e Is

land

0.5

0.5

1,00

0FI

ND

-50%

BB

EE

TF-5

0%

6Le

gion

Isla

nd7

14

500

0.2

250

05

150,

000

FIN

D-5

0%B

BE

ETF

-50%

8P

elic

an Is

land

514

70.

54

411

805

300,

000

FIN

D-5

0%B

BE

ETF

-50%

9S

andp

iper

210

001.

520

002

150,

000

FIN

D-5

0%B

BE

ETF

-50%

10Te

rn2

1000

1.5

2000

215

0,00

0FI

ND

-50%

BB

EE

TF-5

0%

11Q

uays

ide

Isla

nd5

350

0.5

430

00.

3420

005

590,

000

FIN

D-4

0%B

BE

ETF

-41%

FDE

P-1

9%

12H

elke

rs4

472

0.2

3.8

1000

0.27

0.5

866

430

0,00

0FI

ND

-50%

BB

EE

TF-5

0%

13C

resc

ent a

& b

259

00.

350.

510

002

200,

000

FIN

D-4

0%B

BE

ETF

-40%

FDE

P-2

0%

14Li

ttle

San

dspu

r1.

521

61

0.5

610

117

0,00

0FI

ND

-50%

BB

EE

TF50

%

15S

ands

pur

1512

003.

810

2.47

915

1553

1,00

0FI

ND

-44%

BB

EE

TF-4

8%S

FWM

D-8

%

16Fl

agle

r Mon

umen

t Isl

and

4.5

740

13

500

0.2

885

4.5

220,

000

FIN

D-5

0%B

BE

ETF

50%

17D

inne

r Key

Isla

nd7

0.5

3.5

220

004

275,

000

Mia

mi-D

ade

Sea

port-

100%

Tota

ls71

9575

19.8

532

.328

006.

1810

.815

806

59.3

3,68

2,00

0


TABLE

3-RE

STORA

TION e

xamp

leW

etla

nd r

esto

rati

on in

Bis

cayn

e B

ay—

sele

cted

exa

mpl

es

FDR

P=Fl

orid

a D

epar

tmen

t of E

nvir

onm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion,

Flo

rida

Div

isio

n of

Rec

reat

ion

and

Park

s;M

D-W

ASA

= M

iam

i-D

ade

Cou

nty

Wat

er a

nd S

ewer

Aut

hori

ty;

BB

EET

F=M

iam

i-D

ade

Cou

nty

Bis

cayn

e B

ay E

nvir

onm

enta

l Enh

ance

men

t Tru

st F

und;

FIN

D=

Flor

ida

Inla

nd N

avig

atio

n D

istr

ict;

USF

S=U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of A

gric

ultu

re, U

.S. F

ores

try

Serv

ice;

Hig

h: >

66%

, Med

ium

: <33

%<

66%

, Low

: <33

%

/ecnerefe

Rn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitaco

Lsti

nu

fo

reb

mu

Nf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pder

otseraera

derotser

aerader

otseraera

derotser

aerader

otseraera

fo

epy

T/seice

pS

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Hf

olavivr

uS

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stifene

befil

dliW

gni

dn

uF

/tso

Cecr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

S

b9991onali

MM

RE

D-D

Mtu

Crae

Bya

BlartneC

serca5

dnahsra

mtla

Sdetalosi

detimil

sdnaltew

retawhserf

;%59-

AS

AW-

DM

%5-F

TE

EB

B

:stne

mm

oC

000,008$rof

)4elba

T(evorgna

mrednu

detsilnoitarotser

fotra

PP

RD

F,

MR

ED-

DM

b9991onali

M

b9991onali

MP

RD

F,

MR

ED-

DM

epaC

sggaBlli

Bdirol

Fkra

Petat

Sa

yaBlartne

C

stinu005,84

a

serca01

retawhserf

detalosIsdnalte

whgi

Hsdrib

foseiceps

04;

%73-F

TE

EB

B-

DNI

F%43-

SF

SU

;%11-

DM

WF

S%21

;%01-

AS

AW-

DM

:stne

mm

oC

.)4elba

Tees(

kraP

sggaBlli

Bni

000,008,2$eht

fotra

P


TABLE

4-RE

STORA

TION e

xamp

lesM

angr

ove

rest

orat

ion

in B

isca

yne

Bay

and

sur

roun

ding

s—se

lect

ed e

xam

ples

/ecnerefe

Rn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitaco

Lsti

nu

fo

reb

mu

Nf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pder

otseraera

derotser

aerader

otseraera

derotser

aerader

otseraera

fo

epy

T/seice

pS

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Hf

olavivr

uS

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stifene

befil

dliW

gni

dn

uF

/tso

Cecr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

S

b9991onali

MM

RE

D-D

Mye

K.

N,tu

Crae

Blartne

C,enyacsi

Bya

B

stinu007,13

~:de

R052,031

~:kcal

B265,01

~:etih

Wstinu

htiw

serca01

stinuerca-3lanoitidda

dnopladit

elgnam

arohpozihR

snanimreg

ainnecivA

airalucnugaL,kcalb

,deR(

asomecar

)evorgnam

etihw

dna

hgiH

-D

M,000,008$

,%59

-A

SA

W%5-

FT

EE

BB

:stne

mm

oC

)3elba

Tees(

sdnaltew

retawhserf

dnatlas

foserca

5osla

sedulcnI

onaliM

a9991onali

M,

PR

DF

b9991,

MU

,M

RE

D-D

MU

AF

epaC

sggaBlli

B,kra

Petat

Sadirol

Fenyacsi

Bye

Kya

BlartneC

57,stinu

000,003~

sercaelgna

m.

Rhgi

Hseiceps

drib04

deregnadne1elidocorc

,000,008,2$,

%73-F

TE

EB

B,

%21-D

NIF

-D

M,

%11-D

MW

FS

-S

FS

U,

%01-A

SA

W%43

:stne

mm

oC

b9991onali

MP

RD

F,

MR

ED-

DM

etatS

reviR

atelO

yaB

htroN

,kraP

5.14,stinu

000,051~

sercaelgna

m.

RA

BT

,)serca31(

000,003$eda

D-imai

M000,007,1$

;tropaeS

AB

T,)serca

5.82(

:stne

mm

oC

.lavomer

noitategevcitoxe

,krowten

keercladitretnifo

noitaerc,etsa

wdilos

folavomer

,llifdegderd

fonoitavacxe

sedulcnitso

C


/ecnerefe

Rn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitaco

Lsti

nu

fo

reb

mu

Nf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pder

otseraera

derotser

aerader

otseraera

derotser

aerader

otseraera

fo

epy

T/seice

pS

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Hf

olavivr

uS

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stifene

befil

dliW

gni

dn

uF

/tso

Cecr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

S

b9991onali

MM

RE

D-D

Mya

Benyacsi

BUI

Fya

Bhtro

N,sup

maC

2,stinu

000,01~

sercaelgna

m.

Rhgi

H-i

maiM

000,041$cilbu

Po

Ceda

D.tpe

Dskro

W

:stne

mm

oC

laditfo

noitaercdna

,liopsdegderd

folavomer

dnanoitavacxe

,seicepsevitan

elbarisedgnitnalpsnart

,lavomer

scitoxesedulcni

tsoC

.slennahcgnihsulf

b9991onali

MM

RE

D-D

Mhtuo

Sye

Knekcih

Cya

B4

,stinu000,02

~serca

elgnam

.R

hgiH

-P

ED

F000,006$

,%42-

DW

FS

,%43

%24-F

TE

EB

B

:stne

mm

oC

.noitarotserenud

fotf

0021dna

,detavacxellifegderd

,devomer

scitoxefo

serca4

sedulcnitso

C

-D

Mb9991

onaliM

MR

ED

yaB

htroN

)2#D

M(tne

mtiurcerlarutaN

serca2.0

etaerco

Tevorgna

mfo

snanimreg

.A

-D

NIF

,000,092$%05-

FT

EE

BB

,%05

:stne

mm

oC

)2elba

Tees(

ytinum

mocenud

osla,detiurcer

yllarutandna

detaercaer

A

-D

M0002

onaliM

MR

ED

dnalsIsrekle

Hya

Bhtro

N)21#

DM(

stinu556

~:de

Rstinu

022~

:kcalB

erca72.0

elgnam

.R

hgiH

%05-D

NIF

000,003$%05-

FT

EE

BB

:stne

mm

oC

decnahnedna

,dnartslatsaocdna

kcom

mahe

mitiram

derotser,scitoxe

foserca

4deraelc

osla;sevorgna

mgnisu

noitazilibatsenileroh

S.tne

mtiurcerevorgna

mlarutan

-D

M0002

onaliM

MR

ED

sdnalsItnecser

Cya

Bhtro

N)31#

DM(

5.0,stinu

a0002~

ercaelgna

m.

Rhgi

H-

DNI

F,000,002$

%05-F

TE

EB

B%05

:stne

mm

oC

dnartslatsaocdna

enudfo

erca1

detaercdna

scitoxefo

serca2

deraelC

.sredluobkcore

mildna

sevorgnam

gnisunoitazilibats

enilerohS

-D

Mb9991

onaliM

MR

ED

lartneC

yeK

ainigriV

yaB

4,stinu

000,02~

sercaelgna

m.

Rhgi

Hfo

ytiC

,000,081$,

%33-imai

M,

%33-F

TE

EB

B%33-

PE

DF

:stne

mm

oC

.lliffo

noitavacxedna

,lavomer

scitoxe,noitaerc

enudfo

serca2

sedulcnI


/ecnerefe

Rn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitaco

Lsti

nu

fo

reb

mu

Nf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pder

otseraera

derotser

aerader

otseraera

derotser

aerader

otseraera

fo

epy

T/seice

pS

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Hf

olavivr

uS

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stifene

befil

dliW

gni

dn

uF

/tso

Cecr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

S

-D

M0002

onaliM

MR

ED

rupsdnaS

elttiL)41#

DM(

dnalsiya

Bhtro

N

,tnemtiurcerlaruta

Nerca

1tne

mtiurcerlarutaN

000,071$

:stne

mm

oC

enuddetaerc

,scitoxederael

C

0002onali

MM

RE

D-D

MdnalsI

rupsdnaS

yaB

htroN

)51#D

M(5.2

,stinu005,21

~serca

elgnam

.R

hgiH

-F

TE

EB

B,000,135$

,%44-

DNI

F,

%84%8-

DM

WF

S

:stne

mm

oC

.noitaerckco

mmah

emitira

mdna

enudsedulcnI

.sredluobdna

evorgnam

htiw

noitazilibatsenileroh

S

b9991onali

MM

RE

D-D

MdnalsI

edisyauQ

yaB

htroN

)11#D

M(43.0

,stinu003

~erca

elgnam

.R

hgiH

-D

NIF

,000,095$,

%14-F

TE

EB

B,

%04%91-

PE

DF

:stne

mm

oC

.dnartslatsaocdna

,kcom

mahe

mitiram

,enuddetaerc

,scitoxefo

serca8

deraelC

b9991onali

MM

RE

D-D

MdnalsI

yeK

renniD

yaBlartne

C,stinu

054,3~

:deR

2stinu

004~

:kcalB

erca

elgnam

.R

snanimreg

.A

hgiH

-imai

M,000,572$

tropaeS

.oC

edaD

:stne

mm

oC

emitira

mdna

dnartslatsaocfo

serca4

detaerc,scitoxe

foerca

4derael

C.sredluob

kcoremil

dnaevorgna

mhti

wnoitazilibats

enilerohS

.kcom

mah

.late

MR

ED-

DM

7991ya

Bhtro

NC

tcarT

9.1,stinu

000,01~

sercaelgna

m.

RT

CF

,000,001$

:stne

mm

oC

.hsram

tlasosl

A.scitoxe

foserca

2folavo

merdnallif

fonoitavacx

E

7791sae

Tetavir

P/R

ND

Felttu

TailuJ

yaB

htroN

stinu023

elgnam

.R

snanimeg

.A

asomicar

.L

%0.o

m01

ta%01

.om

42ta

enoN

:stne

mm

oC

.sirbedthguorb

sdniw

hgiH


/ecnerefe

Rn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitaco

Lsti

nu

fo

reb

mu

Nf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pder

otseraera

derotser

aerader

otseraera

derotser

aerader

otseraera

fo

epy

T/seice

pS

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Hf

olavivr

uS

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stifene

befil

dliW

gni

dn

uF

/tso

Cecr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

S

7791sae

Tetavir

P/R

ND

Fselba

GlaroC

lartneC

yawreta

Wya

B

81stinu

31stinu

75stinu

elgnam

.R

snanimreg

.A

asomicar

.L

.om

6ta

%001repoleve

Detavir

P

:stne

mm

oC

ygrenewoL

9791redeorhc

Setavir

P/

RN

DF

mulpocoC

yaBlartne

Cstinu

003,3etaredo

mot

hgiH

repolevedetavir

P

EC

AS

U0991

saeT

setatsE

gnireeD

yaB

htuoS

stinu000,2

elgnam

.R

hgiH

repolevedetavir

P

:stne

mm

oC

.yortsedton

didwerdn

Aenacirru

H

eniraM

edaD

etutitsnI,robra

He

maN

oN

etatS

adirolF

epaC

yaB

.C

,kra

P

stinu583,1

elgnam

.R

%11

)1(sae

Tetavir

P/R

ND

Fhtuo

Sya

Breltu

C.

SselsI

ynnuS

yaB

yaB

htroN

stinu003

stinu000,1

elgnam

.R

snanimreg

.A

asomicar

.Lelgna

m.

R

%05-0%02

/repolevedetavir

P

:stne

mm

oC

taep,sretnal

P.derrucco

noitazinolocerlarutaN

)1(sae

Tetavir

P/R

ND

Frevolua

Hs

’rekaB

yaB

htroN

stinu003,1

elgnam

.R

snanimreg

.A

asomicar

.L

%01%51

%51

:stne

mm

oC

selugaporpdna

sdeeS

)1(sae

Tetavir

P/R

ND

Fya

Bs

’reniraM

stinu003

%2

:stne

mm

oC

etihw

33,kcalb

71,der

43tne

mtiurcerlarutaN


FDR

P=Fl

orid

a D

epar

tmen

t.of E

nvir

onm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion,

Flo

rida

Div

isio

n of

Rec

reat

ion

and

Park

s;U

SAC

E=U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of D

efen

se, U

.S. A

rmy

Cor

ps o

f Eng

inee

rs;

MD

-DER

M=

Mia

mi-

Dad

e C

ount

y En

viro

nmen

tal R

esou

rces

Man

agem

ent ;

UM

=U

niv.

of M

iam

i; FI

U=

Flor

ida

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity

;FA

U F

lori

da A

tlan

tic

Uni

vers

ity

;FI

ND

=Fl

orid

a In

land

Nav

igat

ion

Dis

tric

t;FD

NR

Flo

rida

Dep

artm

ent o

f Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es (

now

FD

EP, F

lori

da D

ept o

f Env

iron

-men

tal P

rote

ctio

n);

BB

EET

F=M

iam

i-D

ade

Cou

nty

Bis

cayn

e B

ay E

nvir

onm

enta

l Enh

ance

men

t Tru

st F

und;

FCT

=Fl

orid

a C

omm

unit

y Tr

ust;

Hig

h: M

D#

are

Mia

mi-

Dad

e nu

mbe

r des

igna

tion

s for

spoi

l isl

ands

wit

h cr

eate

d na

tive

com

mun

itie

s (se

e Ta

ble

2 fo

r sum

mar

y of

upl

and

com

mun

itie

s);

Hig

h >

66%

, Med

ium

: <33

%<

66%

, Low

: <33

%.

(1)

In A

llem

an (

1983

).

/ecnerefe

Rn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitaco

Lsti

nu

fo

reb

mu

Nf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pder

otseraera

derotser

aerader

otseraera

derotser

aerader

otseraera

fo

epy

T/seice

pS

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Hf

olavivr

uS

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stifene

befil

dliW

gni

dn

uF

/tso

Cecr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

S

EC

AS

U)1(

saeT

anigeR

alliV

yaBlartne

Cstinu

003elgna

m.

R%0

:stne

mm

oC

ry2

EC

AS

U)1(

saeT

,dnalsInodnar

Cya

B.

Cstinu

006,1elgna

m.

Rretfa

%03%02

tcO

.ry3

seY

:stne

mm

oC

tnemtiurcerlaruta

N.kcurts

divaD

enacirruH


/ecnerefe

Rn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitaco

Lsti

nu

fo

reb

mu

Nf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pder

otseraera

derotser

aerader

otseraera

derotser

aerader

otseraera

fo

epy

T/seice

pS

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Hf

olavivr

uS

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stifene

befil

dliW

gni

dn

uF

/tso

Cecr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

S

9891.la

tenosdu

HS

GS

Usye

Kadirol

Fenira

MlanoitaN

naecO

ffoyrautcna

Sfee

R

semod

32tfos

6dna

drah11

laroC

:slarochgi

H&

hsifyna

Msetarbetrevni

SG

SU

000,002$~

:stne

mm

oC

robaldetanod

foeulav

dedulcnidna

srallod1002

nideta

mitsetso

C.ytilatro

mo

N.revo

yltceriddessap

werdnA

enacirruH

PR

DF

6991nosdu

Hepa

Csgga

BlliB

etatS

adirolF

,aerA

noitaerceR

yaBlartne

C

stinu272:laroc

draH

stinu531

:laroctfo

Sseicepslaroc

drah01

slaroctfos

foseiceps

6laro

C

:tfoS

%7.98:dra

H.o

m6

retfA

%2.28setarbetrevni

,hsiF

PR

DF

005,61$

:stne

mm

oC

dnanoitcurtsnoc

morfdeucser

erew

skcoresool

nogni

worgsegnops

55osl

A.parpir

niskcor

otllawaeslacitrev

morfdetnalpsnar

T.shtno

m6

tagnirotino

msedulcni

tsoC

.parpirwen

ehtfo

esabeht

tadetacoler

niwdoo

G&

nosduH

AA

ON-

SM

NK

F7991

syeK

adirolF

eniraMlanoita

Nnaec

Offo

yrautcnaS

feeR

stnalpsnart02

surdnilycarygordne

Dlaro

C%69

setarbetrevni,hsi

F

:stne

mm

oC

.setarht

worglarocerusae

mot

snipleetssselniats

dedulcnI.laroc

ehtdehsilbatseer

,werdn

Aenacirru

Hretf

A

5691guahroh

Ti

maiM

fo.vin

Uya

Benyacsi

Bye

K&

)evlaV

ytefaS(

&lartneC

ograLya

Bhtuo

S

s’000,1

,sutatipacsullicine

Psulahpecopih

Rade

milaH

,xineohp&

aitnupo.H

,anutaediocsid

hgiH

setarbetrevni&

hsiF

fo.vin

U:000,1$

imai

M

:stne

mm

oC

retfadna

enacirruH

retfastolp

tseT

tABL

E 5-R

ESTOR

ATION

exam

ples

Cor

al &

mac

roal

gae

rest

orat

ion

in B

isca

yne

Bay

& n

earb

y ar

eas—

sele

cted

exa

mpl

es


/ecnerefe

Rn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitaco

Lsti

nu

fo

reb

mu

Nf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pder

otseraera

derotser

aerader

otseraera

derotser

aerader

otseraera

fo

epy

T/seice

pS

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Hf

olavivr

uS

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stifene

befil

dliW

gni

dn

uF

/tso

Cecr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

S

relleK

&guahroh

T&

guahrohT

,2791ze

moG-aicra

G&

guahrohT,2791

5791sso

V

yaB

htuoS

s’001

.LietiopaicneruaL

laglaorcaM

asutbohgi

H,setarbetrevnI

pmirhs

yllaicepsetnar

Gae

S000,3$

:stne

mm

oC

.stsetht

worgdna

sdohtem

dnasutarappa

fotse

T

.vinU

8791nylessoJi

maiM

foya

Bhtuo

Ss

’000,1ietiop

aicneruaLlaglaorca

Mhgi

H,setarbetrevnI

pmirhs

yllaicepsefo

.vinU

000,3$

imai

M

:stne

mm

oC

noitavitlucelacs

egraL

USG

S=U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of I

nter

ior,

U.S

. Geo

logi

cal S

urve

y;FD

RP=

Flor

ida

Dep

artm

ent o

f Env

iron

men

tal P

rote

ctio

n D

ivis

ion

of R

ecre

atio

n an

d Pa

rks;

FKN

MS=

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, N

atio

nal O

cean

ic a

nd A

tmos

pher

ic A

dmin

istr

atio

n, F

lori

da K

eys N

atio

nal

Mar

ine

Sanc

tuar

y.H

igh:

>66

%, M

ediu

m: <

33%

<66

%, L

ow: <

33%


TABLE

6-RE

STORA

TION e

xamp

lesSe

agra

ss r

esto

rati

on in

Bis

cayn

e B

ay &

sur

roun

ding

s—se

lect

ed e

xam

ples

/ecnerefe

Rn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitaco

Lsti

nu

fo

reb

mu

Nf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pder

otseraera

derotser

aerader

otseraera

derotser

aerader

otseraera

fo

epy

T/seice

pS

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Hf

olavivr

uS

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stifene

befil

dliW

gni

dn

uF

/tso

Cecr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

S

4791guahroh

TA

AO

N-G

S/E

OD

SU

htuoS

tnioP

yekruT

yaB

nerrab2

ni000,02

saeraaissalah

Tssargae

S%87

,setarbetrevni,hsi

Fsdrib

000,53$

:stne

mm

oC

.noitategev0

morf.ry

21slortnoc.raey

3ni

htworge

R

0891guahroh

TP

ED

Fkra

Peca

Pteragra

Mya

Bhtro

N000,7

005,1aissalah

Teludola

Hssargae

Shgi

Hsetarbetrevni

&hsi

Fsdrib,

eetanaM

fotro

P:000,01$

imai

M

:stne

mm

oC

enilerohsgnola

&reta

wrepeed

otnidaerp

S

,8791guahroh

TP

ED

F0891

htroN

elttuT

ailuJya

Bserca

3ni

000,02aissalah

Teludola

Hssargae

S-aissalah

Tdecnahne

hgiH

hgiH

,setarbetrevni&

hsiF

seetanam

,sdribA

SA

W-D

M:000,01$

:stne

mm

oC

.laH

htworg

dooG

.giro0

,ht

worg.lah

Ttnellecx

E

3891guahroh

TE

CA

SU

,P

ED

Fesirpru

SekaL

dnuoS

senraB/dra

Cya

Bhtuo

S

eludolaH

ssargaeS

%69,setarbetrevni

,hsiF

sdribdaor

etavirP

rotcartnoc

:stne

mm

oC

.aeradega

madssecxe

ta)segde

taretnalp

dn2(,ht

worglaretalhgih

,htworg

tsaF

noxiH

&guahroh

TA

AO

N-G

S5791

sdnalsIegder

Dlartne

Cdna

htroN

yaB

foseires

ani

002,1stolp

tsetaissalah

Teludola

Hsdnalsi

ybdeira

V,

%55-51latne

mirepxe

deidutsto

Ntnar

Gae

S:000,01$

:stne

mm

oC

ytidibrut&

ygrene,.t

mahti

wgniyra

V

7891guahroh

TP

ED

F,

EC

AS

UE

NT

S82

–42

yaB

htroN

.tsE

.ryS

:serca

02005,002

.laH

000,21005,37

.lahT

eludolaH

muidogniryS

aissalahT

%06.la

H%66

.ryS

%78.lah

T,setarbetrevni

&hsi

Fylivaeh

seetanam

def

fotro

P:

008,67$&

%08imai

Mrekcabnekci

R%02ytirohtu

A

:stne

mm

oC

tnerruc,dibru

T.sedalb

gnolyrev

werG

.llaftuoega

wesre

mrofraen

etisegraL


/ecnerefe

Rn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitutits

nIn

oitaco

Lsti

nu

fo

reb

mu

Nf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pf

oezi

S/

detnal

pder

otseraera

derotser

aerader

otseraera

derotser

aerader

otseraera

fo

epy

T/seice

pS

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Htati

baH

tatiba

Hf

olavivr

uS

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stin

udet

nalp

stifene

befil

dliW

gni

dn

uF

/tso

Cecr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

Secr

uo

S

5891guahroh

TP

ED

F,

EC

AS

Uhtro

Nstol

Ptse

T31

yaBlartne

Cdna

000,05serca83.01

stinueludola

Hmuidogniry

Saissalah

T.suoira

Vlatne

mirepxE

,setarbetevni,hsi

F,seetana

m.sdrib

,sesioprop

:082,26$i

maiM

fotro

P

:stne

mm

oC

.cte,ytidibrut,htped,euqinhcet,seiceps

notnedneped

sseccus;setis

31ya

Bhtro

Ntuo

-hguorht,seiceps

repseuqinhcet

2

7891guahroh

TP

ED

F,

EC

AS

Ulennah

Cgniree

Dya

BlartneC

&S

(sgirps

086,13.lah

T021,12

&)

Hserca

7.2ni

sdeeS

eludolaH

muidogniryS

aissalahT

,woL

yrevS

&H

,.dom

.lahT

latnemirepx

E

hsiF

fotro

P005,21$

imai

M

:stne

mm

oC

.)naJ/ceD

(retniw

nidevivru

Ssdees

.lahT

tpecxegnihto

N.dlro

wni

erehwyna

erofebenod

reveN

.stsetgnitnalp

retniW

7891guahroh

TP

ED

F,

EC

AS

Ulatipso

Hycre

Mya

BlartneC

&.laH

666,57202

nI.lah

T052,061

serca

aissalahT

eludolaH

%86,setarbetrevni

hsiF

sdrib.seetanam

fotro

P:057,961$

imai

M

)%61-53

(%

wolot

%86decuder

gnitnalpretfa

om

638/1

mrotsretni

wecrof

elaG

yelgnaL&

ybaG

PE

DF

,E

CA

SU

5891lartne

CelsI

evorG

yaB

sercadna

)%08(

,aissalahT

)%02(

.muidogniry

Ssgulp

latnemirepx

E,

hsiF

.setarbetrev

ni.setar

betrevni

.setarbetrev

ni.setar

betrevni

.setarbetrev

nii

maiM

fotro

P

:stne

mm

oC

aerallifhcaeb

enyacsiB

yeK

morflairetam

gnitnalP

SG-N

OA

A=

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, N

atio

nal O

cean

ic a

nd A

tmos

pher

ic A

dmin

istr

atio

n, S

ea G

rant

;U

SAC

E=U

.S. A

rmy

Cor

ps o

f Eng

inee

rs;

USD

OE=

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Ene

rgy;

FDEP

=Fl

orid

a D

epar

tmen

t of E

nvir

onm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion;

MD

-WA

SA=

Mia

mi-

Dad

e C

ount

y W

ater

and

Sew

er A

utho

rity

;H

igh:

>66

%, M

ediu

m: <

33%

<66

%, L

ow: <

33%


Water and Sediment Quality219

Water and Sediment Quality

Chair:

Lee Hefty

Author:

Lee N. Hefty, Edward R. Long, and Susan M. Markley

Contributors:

Sarah A. Bellmund, Larry Brand, Joan A. Browder, Max Flandorfer,Piero R. Gardinali, Frank Millero, and Renate H. Skinner


BackgroundBiscayne Bay water quality has been the subject of monitoring and study for many decades. A network of surface watermonitoring stations within the Bay was established by the Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Manage-ment in the late 1970’s, with support from the State of Florida. The network was expanded to include the Miami River andother canals and tributaries in the mid-1980’s in connection with the Biscayne Bay Surface Water Improvement andManagement Program. The database established through this ongoing program is shared with public and private sectororganizations and includes approximately one-half million observations. Additional monitoring conducted by FloridaInternational University focuses on nutrient parameters and links to other south Florida monitoring databases. The USGeological Survey (U.S.G.S.) has also monitored canals and groundwater in the Biscayne Bay watershed. Miami-DadeDERM conducts groundwater monitoring and stormwater monitoring in connection with selected regulatory activities.Sediment chemistry studies have been conducted by local, state, and federal agencies over the past 20 years.

Biscayne Bay’s water quality has improved substantially in the past 30 years, and water quality generally meets orexceeds federal, state, and local standards for recreational uses and propagation of fish and wildlife. In recognition of itsexceptional values, the State of Florida has designated the Bay and its natural tributaries as Outstanding Florida Waters, andas such they receive the highest level of protection from degradation. However, some portions of the bay have been signifi-cantly affected by past development and water management practices. Loss of wetland and seagrass communities hascontributed to changes in physical and ecological water quality characteristics. Also, the Bay still receives dissolved nutri-ents, trace metals, organic chemicals, and particulates via stormwater runoff, canal discharge, and discharges from industrialfacilities or vessels. Canal water typically has lower dissolved oxygen and clarity and higher concentrations of contaminantsthan receiving waters of the Bay, and so represents a source of degradation. The Biscayne Bay SWIM Plan provides adetailed analysis of water quality patterns and trends and includes numerous recommendations for protecting and enhancingthe Bay (Alleman, et al 1995). The following brief review focuses on selected water quality issues.

Water ClarityBecause Biscayne Bay productivity is dominated by seagrass and benthic algae, which depend on light reaching the baybottom, water clarity or transparency is of critical significance. Biscayne Bay is characterized by low turbidity levels, typicallyless than 2 NTUs, although wind-driven resuspension of bottom sediments can occur following storm events. In most areasof Biscayne Bay, water clarity is adequate to sustain growth of benthic vegetation. However, there are some areas whereturbidity and transparency are a concern particularly in regions of the bay north of Coconut Grove/Key Biscayne.

The Bay bottom and shorelines north of Coconut Grove/Key Biscayne were altered by dredging, primarily to provide fillfor development of surrounding lands and for navigation channels in the 1920’s and 1930’s. Dredging of the Bay bottomeliminated seagrass and increased depths in portions of north Biscayne Bay, making it impossible for benthic vegetation torecover. Loss of stabilizing vegetation and continuing resuspension and erosion of unconsolidated sediment are the principalcause of chronic turbidity in some areas of north Biscayne Bay (Wanless, et al., 1984). Seawalls, which replaced somenatural shorelines in north Biscayne Bay and reflect wave energy, also contribute to resuspension of bottom sediments.Although dredging and filling are strictly regulated, localized turbidity impacts sometimes occur in connection with dredg-ing, coastal construction, or vessel traffic. Nutrient enrichment, particularly near canal mouths and in Dumfoundling Bay,can lead to intermittent declines in water transparency as a result of phytoplankton blooms. Tannin-colored water associatedwith canal discharges also reduces light penetration.


Sewage and Sanitary QualityDirect discharge of sewage effluent to Biscayne Bay was largely eliminated in the mid-1950’s when regional sewage treatmentplants were constructed, and consequently sanitary quality of the water improved dramatically (McNulty, 1970). However,indirect sewage contamination from improper or illegal discharges to storm sewers or groundwater remain problematic insome tributaries (DERM, 1993; Alleman et al. 1995). Use of appropriate indicators of sewage pollution for marine waters isthe subject of ongoing scientific interest. Coliform and enterococcus bacteria are common in human waste and easy toculture in the laboratory. However, they may also be associated with other sources, such as soils and other animal waste, andare attenuated to varyingdegrees after exposure tosaltwater. Despite theseshortcomings, there has notbeen adequate epidemio-logical research to relatethe occurrence and persis-tence of indicator organismsin tropical marine waters tothe incidence of swimming-related human illness or toidentify a superior indicator.Therefore, current state andlocal water quality criteriaare based upon coliform orfecal coliform bacteriaconcentrations. See figure1.

Based on these param-eters, open water areas ofthe Bay rarely have ex-ceeded standards forrecreational contact overmore than 20 years. Incontrast, the Miami Riverand its tributaries chroni-cally exceed standards, andoccasionally exhibitcoliform bacteria concen-trations that exceedstandards by several ordersof magnitude (Markley, etal., 1990; DERM, 1993).With the exception of theWagner Creek area,coliform bacteria concen-trations in the Miami Riverhave improved over the lastfive years, although they

Figure 1


generally still exceed standards. Other highly urban canals, including the upper Oleta River, Arch Creek, and Little Riveralso exhibit frequent incidence of sewage contamination. During tropical storms, flooding, or damage to sewer infrastructure,contaminated canal water periodically affects adjoining portions of the Bay. In view of the possibility that coliform data maynot adequately characterize sewage contamination in saltwater comparative sanitary surveys, using other bacterial, viral, andchemical indicators of sewage pollution have been conducted in the Biscayne Bay area (Pierce and Brown, 1986;McQuorcodale, 1987). These studies generally confirmed the geographic patterns of contamination, showing evidence ofsewage in the Miami River, urban tributaries, and poorly flushed nearshore areas. In 1999, the Florida Department of Healthadded routine sampling for Enterococcus to its beach monitoring program. In 2000, the Florida Legislature provided addi-tional funding statewide for FDOH to continue monitoring this indicator.

NutrientsIn general, water clarityin the Bay is high andinorganic nutrientconcentrations are low.Since concentrations ofnutrients in the bay arelow, Biscayne Bay isvulnerable to nutrientloading. Brand (1988)determined that phospho-rus is the limitingnutrient for phytoplank-ton growth in the bay.Excess nutrients canstimulate the growth ofphytoplankton andepiphyte populations thatcan prevent sufficientlight penetration tosustain the vital benthiccommunities. High levelsof ammonia can be toxicto invertebrates and fish.The SWIM Plan de-scribes several significantwater quality trends forBiscayne Bay. It con-cludes that increases inammonia and nutrientconcentrations accountedfor most negative waterquality trends. Sources ofammonia and nutrientscan include stormwaterrunoff, sewage contami-

Figure 2


nation, leachate from landfills, fertilizers, and natural decay of plant material. These sources of contaminants can reach theBay via surface water discharges from canals, direct upland runoff, or through groundwater pathways.

Rules governing protection of the water resources of Biscayne Bay contain a narrative standard that protects the Bayfrom degradation of water quality and the loss of its designated uses. However, there are presently no numerical water qualitystandards for nutrient levels in Biscayne Bay. A multi-agency review team was convened as part of efforts to define numeri-cal targets or performance measures to ensure that water quality in Biscayne Bay, particularly Biscayne National Park, is notdegraded by changes in water management practices or by development in the watershed. The group evaluated existingwater quality data and identified nutrient concentrations in open areas of south Biscayne Bay. They concluded that in orderto prevent degradation of water quality in Biscayne Bay, the following nutrient concentrations should not be exceeded: totalammonia, 0.02-0.05 mg/L(20 – 50 ppb) (dependenton sampling method);nitrate-nitrite, 0.01 mg/L(10 ppb); and totalphosphorus, 0.005 mg/L (5ppb). Although waterquality performancemeasures have not beenformally adopted forBiscayne Bay, the reviewteam’s determinationsserve as valuable guide-lines. While nutrientconcentrations in the bayare low, levels observed infreshwater canals discharg-ing to the bay are higher.More work is needed todefine acceptable nutrientconcentrations for a nearshore estuarine mixingzone.

An evaluation of datafrom the Miami-DadeDERM Biscayne BaySurface Water QualityMonitoring Programsupports the conclusion ofa land use based watershedeffect on nutrient levels.Figures 2,3, and 4represent the medianammonia, phosphorus, andnitrate/nitrite levels forthe five year period endingDecember 1999. Higher

Figure 3


ammonia and phosphorous levels occur in the heavily urbanized portions of northern Miami-Dade County. Nutrient loadingin this region of the bay is primarily related to stormwater runoff and sewage contamination. Studies by DERM in the late1980’s (Alleman, 1990) identified high ammonia levels in ground and surface waters near the South Dade landfill andnearby uncontrolled dumps. Ammonia contamination from landfills, particularly old dumps that have not been properlyclosed or remediated, is considered a significant threat to the natural resources of the Bay. Highest surface water ammoniaconcentration during the preceeding five-year data period occurred in Goulds Canal adjacent to older dumps and the activeSouth Dade landfill. Efforts are underway to reduce the impact of the south Dade landfills on local groundwater and surfacewater quality. The South Dade Landfill program includes capping to reduce leachate formation, collection and treatment ofexisting contaminatedgroundwater, andstormwater manage-ment features. The olddumps are undergoingextensive remediationwhich include removaland relocation of oldwaste from areas eastof the levee, treatmentof contaminatedgroundwater, andestablishment of asystem to reduceformation of leachate.

Higher nitrate/nitrite levels occur insurface and groundwa-ter in the southernregion of the county inwatersheds whichsupport large areas ofagriculture. Nitrate/nitrite concentrationsin south Dade canalssuch as Mowry andPrinceton are typicallyan order of magnitudehigher than levels seenin other canals. Thisstrongly suggests aconnection to theagricultural based landuse that dominatessouth Dade.

Lietz (1999)sampled nutrientconcentrations in 15

Figure 4


major canals for two years and developed models that predict load as a function of discharge. The study showed that theconcentration of various nitrogen and phosphorus constituents was related to land use, categorized as urban, agriculture, orforested/wetland. Organic nitrogen concentrations were highest in urban and forested/wetland areas than elsewhere.Inorganic nitrogen was highest in agricultural areas. Ammonia and phosphorus concentrations were highest in urban areas.These conclusions are consistent with results reported by Miami-Dade County. Lietz also estimated loading from canalsbased upon estimated discharge rate and observed nutrient concentrations. For example, the model predicted that a dis-charge rate of 300 ft3/second would result in a total nitrogen load of 3.2 to 4.76 tons per day from the Biscayne Canal, wherethe mean total nitrogen concentration was 1.10 mg/L. Miami-Dade DERM is currently developing watershed models toestimate pollutant loading in connection with stormwater management planning programs.

Groundwater inputs to Biscayne Bay are not very well understood. Modifications to the south Florida landscape duringthis past century are believed to have significantly altered historic groundwater flow to the Bay. Several studies do suggestthat groundwater inputs to the Bay are a near shore phenomenon with most discharge occurring within 100 m of shore(Meeder et al 1997). Meeder’s study of groundwater nutrient loading to the near shore areas of the Bay supports this conclu-sion and suggests that groundwater can contribute significant amounts of nutrients to the bay. This study identified elevatednutrient concentrations in both surface and groundwater and concluded that groundwater nutrient inputs to the bay can besignificantly higher than loading from surface water discharges.

Toxic Pollutants in Water and SedimentsOngoing monitoring programs include sampling for pollutants such as trace metals and synthetic organic chemicals, whichcan be toxic at certain concentrations. Trace metals are detected in marine waters and occasionally in canals, but rarelyexceed State or local regulatory standards. Organic chemicals are generally not detected in surface or groundwater. However,this is not unexpected, since metals and organic chemicals are not highly soluble. Rather than remaining in solution, theytend to bind to particulate matter and settle in sediments. For this reason, local, state and federal studies intended toexamine the pollution climate of Biscayne Bay have included evaluation of sediment chemistry and toxicity.

Several studies have documented the presence of contaminants in the sediments of Biscayne Bay and adjoining canals(Corcoran et al, 1983, Alleman, 1995). Data on chemical concentrations show a familiar pattern: highest concentrations ofmost substances in peripheral canals, rivers, streams, and marinas and lowest concentrations down the central north-southaxis of the bay. The Miami River and Wagner Creek exhibit higher levels of trace metals and organic contaminants, such assome pesticides and PCB’s, than any other area in the State of Florida (Schmale, 1991; DERM, 1993; Gulf Engineers andConsultants, 1993; Seal et al, 1994). Other than relatively small-scale analyses performed in conjunction with dredgingprojects, very little toxicological data have been generated for the bay.

The toxicity of sediments in Biscayne Bay and many adjoining tributaries was investigated as part of a bioeffectsassessments program managed by NOAA’s National Status and Trends Program (Long et al., 2000). This study showed thatcontamination and toxicity were most severe in several peripheral canals and tributaries, including the lower Miami River.In the open basins of the bay, chemical concentrations and toxicity were generally higher in areas north of the RickenbackerCauseway than south of it. Sediments from the main basins of the bay generally were less toxic than those from the adjoin-ing tributaries and canals. The different tests indicated overlapping patterns or gradients in toxicity. The least sensitive testindicated severe toxicity (high mortality) in tests of sediments from the lower Miami River. Compared to conditions in theadjoining portions of the bay, the sediments of the Miami River were contaminated with mixtures of toxicants, were highlytoxic in acute tests, and supported relatively depauperate benthic assemblages.

Results from four different toxicity tests, overall, indicated highest toxicity in samples from the lower Miami River,Black Creek Canal, other canals adjoining the south bay, and canals and tributaries adjoining the bay near Miami andMiami Beach. Samples that were least toxic were collected from the far north and far south ends of the study area. The


causes of toxicity could not be determined in this study. However, the weight of evidence strongly suggests that for the lowerMiami River, toxicity as measured in the amphipod survival tests could have been caused, at least in part, by mixtures ofsome metals and synthetic organic chemicals. In the canals of the south bay, both toxicity and contamination were lesssevere and the identities of chemicals that most probably contributed to toxicity were less clear. Concentrations of PAHs,PCBs, and several trace metals, however, may have been sufficient to contribute to toxicity in the more sensitive sublethaltests.

A section of southern Biscayne Bay showed remarkably high toxicity that could not be explained with the chemicaldata. Results of many of the toxicity tests were highly significant in the samples from this section of the bay, yet they weresurrounded by many stations in which there was little or no toxicity. Concentrations of chemicals for which analyses wereperformed were uniformly low, usually near or below detection limits, in toxic samples from this region. Concentrations ofammonia in some toxic samples were sufficiently elevated to raise concerns that pore water ammonia may have contributedto toxicity. Therefore, the data suggest that chemical substances other than those for which analyses were performed likelycaused or contributed to the toxic conditions in at least some samples. Both the degree and spatial extent of chemicalcontamination and toxicity in this study of Biscayne Bay were similar to or less severe than those observed in many otherareas in the U.S. The spatial extent of toxicity in all tests performed throughout the bay were comparable to the “nationalaverages” calculated by NOAA from previous surveys conducted in a similar manner.

Concurrent with NOAA’s study of Biscayne Bay sediments, a similar study of sediment chemistry and toxicity in 28freshwater canals was conducted by Miami-Dade DERM. In this study, sediments from Wagner Creek, Little River, nearMiami International Airport, and Military Canal exhibited significant toxicity. Data from this study showed highest concen-trations of several metals including mercury, silver, cadmium, and copper were found in Military Canal. A follow up study ofMilitary Canal by the U.S. EPA confirmed these findings and linked contamination in the Canal to past activities atHomestead Air Force Base (U.S. EPA 1999).

Living resources of the bay are exposed to sediment contaminants through benthic food webs and when sediments areresuspended in the water column. Sediment resuspension and redeposition is an ongoing process. Mechanisms includesediment resuspension caused by wave action during periods of high winds and storms, and due to vessel traffic. Furthermorecontaminated sediments in canals and the Miami River can move into the bay when discharge velocities are sufficient tocause resuspension or sediment transport.

Water Quality Issues Related to Proposed Everglades RestorationA component of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) proposes to discharge advanced treatmentwastewater from an upgraded South Dade Wastewater Treatment Plant into Biscayne Bay after routing it first throughcoastal wetlands in order to meet projected freshwater volume requirements for south Biscayne Bay. Although reuse ofwastewater may be an appropriate water conservation strategy in urban or agricultural settings, this concept has raisedconcerns when coupled with discharge to sensitive oligotrophic natural systems. This component is controversial because(1) it is questionable whether a practical technology is available to provide the level of advanced treatment required toprevent harm to the bay, (2) other constituents in sewage (e.g., industrial wastes, heavy metals, and estrogen hormones andother pharmaceuticals) may not be adequately removed by treatment to avoid harm to the bay or wetlands, and (3) plantbreakdowns or accidents could cause a spill that effects the bay or wetlands. Two of the first projects to be implemented bythe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in CERP will be a demonstration advanced treatment pilot plant and an experiment onthe ecological effects of its effluent. The bay may not need this water source if improvements in the regional plan allow morewater from other sources to flow to the bay.


Recommendations1) Quantify pollutant loading to Biscayne Bay.

(Justification: Extensive monitoring data provides a basis for description of geographic and temporal patterns, but thisinformation must be coupled with hydrologic data to develop more dynamic estimates of pollutant loading and nutrient massbalance. Hydrologic models now under development are expected to provide the foundation for water quality models thatshould be useful in projecting changes in geographic patterns, trends, and loading of nutrients and contaminants. However,there are little or no data presently available on atmospheric deposition or flux rates, and little information available onsediment-water column exchange of nutrients or contaminants.

Specific Science Recommendationsa) Conduct water quality and hydrologic studies necessary to quantify pollutant loading to Biscayne Bay. This

should include studies to quantify groundwater inputs to the bay and address the role groundwater plays inpollutant loading.

b) Conduct additional studies to identify fate and transport mechanisms for contaminants in the bay system.This should include studies to address atmospheric deposition or flux rates, and provide information onsediment-water column exchange of nutrients or contaminants.

c) Conduct studies to evaluate impact of elevated nutrient levels in south Dade watershed on the receivingwaters of Biscayne National Park.

2) Refine water quality standards used to indicate the presence of sewage in surface water.

(Justification: Various techniques exist for identifying the presence of sewage in surface waters. However, each method hasinherent limitations and method performance may vary with climate. Epidemiological data on the incidence of swimming-related illness is needed to refine standards for sewage indicator organisms used in South Florida.)

Specific Science Recommendationsa) Conduct surveys to determine the incidence of swimmer related illness for public beaches in South

Florida. Correlate results from the survey with beach water quality monitoring data results to identify themost effective indicator of sewage contamination, and use this information to develop an appropriatenumerical standard.

b) Continue and expand water quality monitoring at public beaches to provide data necessary to evaluatesurvey results and provide to inform the general public.

3) Determine the effect of exposure to contaminants in surface water and sediments on local plant and animalpopulations.

(Justification: With the exception of health-risk assessments conducted in the Military Canal area, there are little dataavailable on levels of mercury or other toxic contaminants in fish and shellfish tissues for the Bay. There are also little or noinformation on the acute or chronic effects of these contaminants on resident plant and animal populations. Such data arenecessary for directing resource management efforts, and are needed to evaluate potential human-health implications ofsubsistence fishing in urban surface waters with potential water and sediment quality degradation.)


Specific Science Recommendationsa) Conduct studies of local plant and animals to determine body burdens for toxic contaminants detected in

surface water and sediments. These studies should include evaluations of species of special concern such asthe bottlenose dolphin.

b) Conduct studies of local plant and animal populations to determine effects of exposure to surface waterand sediment contaminants. These studies should address issues such as the effects of herbicides onseagrasses.

4) Determine the causes for toxicity observed in sediments from south Biscayne Bay.

(Justification: Recent studies conducted by N.O.A.A. have identified the presence of toxicity in sediments from southBiscayne Bay. However, evaluation of paired sediment chemistry data does not show contaminant concentrations at levelsthat can explain the observed toxicity. Further study is needed to identify the causes of toxicity in sediments from this region.In addition, while the use of standardized testing can be a valuable tool for identifying relative toxicity, it is suggested thatfurther studies are needed to quantify the impact of sediment contaminants on resident biota.)

Specific Science Recommendationsa) Conduct investigations to determine the cause for observed toxicity in sediments from southern region of

the bay. These studies should include paired chemistry and toxicity analysis.

b) Conduct studies to quantify the impact of sediment toxicity on resident biota.

Management Related Recommendations1) Develop a routine schedule of review and publishing scientific data for Biscayne Bay.

(Justification: While there are many unanswered science questions for Biscayne Bay, various entities with ongoing monitor-ing programs are generating useful data. It is suggested that efforts be made to develop a program of regular evaluation,summarization, and publishing of results from these programs. In addition, it is recommended that standard analysis methodswith lowest available detection limits be used to more accurately characterize contaminant levels in the bay.)

2) Continue and expand efforts to reduce contaminant loading to the Bay.

(Justification: Studies have identified the presence of contaminants in canal and bay sediments. Monitoring programs haveidentified exceedances of surface water and groundwater quality standards in the Bay and its watershed. Efforts to reducesources of contaminants and minimize inputs to the bay should continue. These efforts should also be expanded to addresscontinued pressures from future growth and development. This includes continuing efforts to reduce contaminant loadingfrom surface water runoff, reducing contamination of groundwater from landfill leachate, and reducing nutrient loading tothe bay.)


REFERENCESAlleman, R. W. 1995. An update of the Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan for Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL.

Alleman, R. W. 1990. Surface Water Quality in the Vicinity of Black Point, Dade County, Florida March 1990, Miami-DadeCounty Department of Environmental Resources Management, DERM Technical Report 90-14.

Barry A. Vittor and Associates, Inc. 1991. Bioassays conducted on sediments from Miami River, Florida. Barry A. Vittor andAssociates, Inc. Mobile, Alabama.

Brand, L. E. 1988. Assessment of Plankton Resources and their Environmental Interactions in Biscayne Bay, Florida; FinalReport. Miami: Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami.

Corcoran, E. F., M. S. Brown, F. R. Baddour, S. A. Chasens, and A. D. Frey. 1983. Biscayne Bay Hydrocarbon Study. FinalReport to Florida Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, FL. University of Miami. Miami, FL. 327 pp.

Corcoran, E. F. 1983. Report on the analyses of five Biscayne Bay sediments. University of Miami, RSMAS. Miami, FL.

Corcoran, E. F., M. S. Brown, and A. D. Freay. 1984. The study of chlorinated pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls andphthalic acid esters in sediment of Biscayne Bay. University of Miami, RSMAS. Prepared for Metro-Dade County.Miami, FL.

Gulf Engineers & Consultants, Inc. 1993. Alternatives for the Dredging and Disposal of Sediment from the Miami Harbor(Miami River) Project, Florida. Baton Rouge, LA. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Army Corps of EngineersJacksonville District

Lietz, A. C. 1999. Methodology for Estimating Nutrient Loads Discharged from the East Coast Canals to Biscayne , Miami-Dade County, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 99-4094

Long, E. R., G. M. Sloane, G. I. Scott, B. Thompson, R. S. Carr, J. Biedenbach, T. L. Wade, R. J. Presley, K. J. Scott, C.Mueller, G. Brecken-Fols, B. Albrecht, J. W. Anderson, and G. T. Chandler. 2000. Magnitude and extent of chemicalcontamination and toxicity in sediments of Biscayne Bay and vicinity. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCAxxx. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, MD.

Markley, S. M., D. K. Valdez, and R. Menge. 1990. Sanitary Sewer Contamination of the Miami River. Miami-Dade CountyDepartment of Environmental Resources Management, DERM Technical Report 90-9

McCorqudale, D. S. 1987. An Assessment of Indicator Bacteria and Bacteriophages in Surface Waters and Sediments ofBiscayne Bay. Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management

Meeder, J. F., J. Alvord, M. Burns, M. Ross, and A. Renshaw. 1997. Distribution of Benthic Nearshore Communities andtheir Relationship to Groundwater Nutrient Loading, Final Report to Biscayne National Park, Southeast Environmen-tal Research Program, Florida International University, Miami, Florida. October 1997

Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management. 1993. Miami River Water Quality Plan; areport to the Miami River Water Quality Commission. DERM Technical Report 93-3.

McNulty, J. K. 1970. Effects of Abatement of Domestic Sewage Pollution on the Benthos, Volumes of Zooplnakton, andFouling Organisms of Biscayne Bay, Florida. 107 pp. Studies in Tropical Oceanography, 9. Coral Gables: University ofMiami Press.

Pierce, R. H., and R. C. Brown. 1987. A Survey of Coprostanol Concentrations in Biscayne Bay Sediments Miami-Dade


County Department of Environmental Resources Management.

Seal, T. L., F. D. Calder, G. M. Sloane, S. J. Schropp, and H. L. Windom. 1994. Florida Coastal Sediment ContaminantsAtlas. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, Florida

Schmale, M. C. 1991. Effects of Historical Contaminants on Biota in Biscayne Bay, Florida 1991-93. University of Miami,RSMAS report prepared for South Florida Water Management District. West Palm Beach, FL.

USEPA Region 4 Military Canal Special Study Homestead Air Force Base, Florida. 1999. SESD Project No. 98-0062, FinalReport, October 1999

Wanless, H. R., D. J. Cottrell, R. W. Parkinson, and E. Burton. 1984. Sources and Circulation of Turbidity, Biscayne Bay,Florida. Miami: Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami.


m a n a g e m e n t s u rv e y T E A MFINAL REPORT


management survey team report233

ContentsINTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 234

Getting StartedTeam ObjectivesManagement Issues

SURVEY ............................................................................................................................... 236Current Management Activities

FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 240

RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................. 241Background: Achieving Consensus Recommendations

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................ 245


INTRODUCTIONGetting StartedThe Management Team began to organize its work and started to develop a work plan at their first meeting. Team membersfelt that the place to start was an overview of current conditions. The team believed that quality management efforts wereunderway in Biscayne Bay and it was important to become better acquainted with the many components of the existingmanagement system. The team also recognized that water bodies in other parts of the United States have grappled withsimilar issues as those affecting Biscayne Bay and a better understanding of their management efforts would be useful as well.

The Management Team also believed it was important to integrate its work with the work of the three other surveyteams in the BBPI process. The Management Team wanted to understand the management goals and priority issues of theother survey teams.

Finally, the Management Team wanted to suggest refinements for an improved management system in Biscayne Baybased on an understanding of the current system, the management efforts in other water bodies, and the priorities issues ofthe survey teams.

Team ObjectivesThe Management Team adopted the following objectives to guide their work.

• Review existing management plans and efforts for Biscayne Bay and its watershed.

• Review selected management models implemented in other bays or watersheds and assess applicability to BiscayneBay.

• Based upon coordination with Science, Regulatory, and Social and Economic Survey Teams, assess current manage-ment needs or goals.

• Assess whether existing plans (a) adequately address management goals; (b) are current; (c) are coordinated andcompatible with each other; (d) could incorporate innovative elements that have been applied elsewhere.

• Develop recommendations to improve the effectiveness of existing management efforts.

Management IssuesThe Management Team developed a list of issues that deserve consideration in the development and refinement of manage-ment efforts in Biscayne Bay. The Management Team did not set out to solve specific problems or develop yet anothermanagement plan to deal with the issues. The intent of the Management Team was to recommend refinements to currentmanagement efforts that might address some of the key issues.

The following are important issues from the perspective of the Management Team.


Management Approaches / Coordination Among Government Non-Profit, andPrivate Entities

• The ability of the existing management structure to adequately address the issues in Biscayne Bay

• Funding for bay initiatives

• Governmental communication with community organizations and the public

• Inter-governmental communication

• Goals and performance measures for key issues

• Stronger consideration of regional management efforts

• Balancing of societal goals and scientific understanding in the management of Biscayne Bay

• Coordination of land acquisition programs

• Coordination of enforcement activities

Public Awareness and Environmental Education

• Public education on bay issues

• Public involvement in implementing solutions

• Involving community organizations

Water: Quantity, Quality, and Timing• Freshwater delivery and distribution needs

• An analysis and targets on a site specific basis

• Water clarity and turbidity

• Sewage discharge and pathogens

• Non-point source impacts (e.g. stormwater runoff)

• Waste disposal and point source pollution

• Airborne pollution

• User impacts

Habitat Quality and Restoration / Living Marine Resources

• Invasive exotic species

• Habitat and natural areas protection

• Buffer zones

• Appropriate level of access for sensitive habitats

• Habitat restoration


• Shoreline protection and enhancement

• Land acquisition

• Endangered and threatened species

• Fisheries

• Bay dependent flora and fauna

Physical and Visual Access / Development of the Shoreline• Growth Management

• Impacts of development in the watershed

• Appropriate use of water front land

• Hurricane protection and preparedness

• Water supply needs

• Flood control

• Public access to the bay

• Appropriate use of public land on or in the bay

• Recreational uses

• Commercial uses

• Trash in the bay and clean up efforts

• Graffiti

• Natural soundscape

• Viewshed

SURVEYCurrent Management ActivitiesOver the years, a variety of management plans and processes have been developed to address important Biscayne Bay issues.Many of those plans and processes are currently being implemented. The broad array of management plans and processescan be credited with many significant accomplishments in protecting and restoring bay resources. The goal is to do evenmore.

The Management Team began its deliberations by trying to develop an understanding of the existing managementsystem in Biscayne Bay. There are a myriad of agencies and organizations that are involved in bay management. TheManagement Team heard and received summary information on the following existing or proposed management plans andstudies that impact Biscayne Bay. Each management plan summary included: the author of the plan, the entities involved inthe plan, the status and scope of the plan, and the key goals or objectives that directly relate to Biscayne Bay. A morecomplete summary of each plan is included as an appendix to this report.


Biscayne Bay Management Plan (adopted 1981)The Biscayne Bay Management Plan was adopted in 1981 by Miami-Dade County, following a lengthy and inclusive publicprocess involving advisory committees, workshops, and hearings. It is comprehensive, addressing environmental, user-related (e.g. recreation, access), and procedural management issues. The goals and objectives of the plan remain relevant,but its geographic scope did not extend very far into the watershed and it did not provide a mechanism for integrating withregional restoration, which was not envisioned at the time.

The principal implementation structure involved a 15-member “Biscayne Bay Management Committee made up of local,state, and federal officials from key agencies and members of the public. In 1993 the Miami-Dade County Commissionattempted to improve efficiency and streamline local government by eliminating certain committees and ordinances, andthe committee was “sunsetted,” along with many other committees.

Biscayne National Park General Management Plan (completed 1983)The Biscayne National Park General Management Plan is the primary management document for the park. It was com-pleted in 1983. The plan is somewhat outdated with respect to issues and scientific understanding, but the managementzones are still applicable. The goals and objectives are divided into three sections: Historical and Natural Resources, PublicEnjoyment, and Physical Necessities. Over one half of Biscayne Bay lies within the Park Boundary. The BNP ManagementPlan also contains information on coordination of activities outside the park, i.e. funding, policies, etc. The National ParkService has begun a two to three year process to develop a new general management plan.

Biscayne National Park Resource Management Plan (completed 1999)This plan implements the General Management Plan with regards to natural and cultural resources. It identifies resourceproblems and sets goals.

Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Rules and Act (established 1974)

Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 18-18 set forth basic management objectives for Biscayne Bayand authorize the development of a management plan. At least two drafts have been completed, one by Miami-DadeCounty and one by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (now the Florida Department of Environmental Protec-tion).

258.397 F.S. and 18-18 F.A.C. set forth management criteria for Biscayne Bay including restrictions on dredging andfilling within the preserve as well as conditions on uses, sales, leases or transfers of interests in lands or materials held by theBoard. 18-18 has a provision for the development of additional management plans in cooperation with the department,consistent with the Act and the Rule.

Biscayne Bay Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan (revised 1995)The Surface Water Improvement Management Plan was developed by the South Florida Water Management District andaddresses protection and enhancement of water quality through a variety of management strategies. The plan was mostrecently approved and updated by the State in 1995. The plan has three goals: improve water quality, improve hydrology,and improve biological resources.

The SWIM Program received significant funds for the first several years. Due to lobbying efforts some projects continueto receive funds through direct appropriations.


State Park Plans (completed and revised 1997-2000)State park plan information was provided for: Oleta River State Recreation Area, Cape Florida State Recreation Area,Barnacle Historic Site, and John Pennekamp State Park.

Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study and Comprehen-sive Everglades Restoration Plan (completed 1999)The purpose of the study was to reexamine the Central and South Florida Project to determine the feasibility of structural oroperational modifications to the project essential to the restoration of the Everglades and the south Florida ecosystem. Thestudy recommends a comprehensive plan for restoration, protection, and preservation of the water resources for the naturalsystem, as well as for urban and agricultural needs.

Coordinating Success: Strategy for Restoration of the South Florida EcosystemVolumes I and II were completed in July of 2000. This plan outlines how the restoration will occur; identifies resourcesneeded to achieve the restoration; assigns accountability for accomplishing actions; and links the strategic goals establishedby the Task Force to outcome oriented annual goals.

South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan (finalized 1999)This plan by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides baseline information and management recommendations on thefederally listed endangered and threatened species in South Florida and their relation to the region’s ecological communities.Important to Biscayne Bay are species such as American crocodile, West Indian manatee, wood stork, and Schaus swallow-tail butterfly, and communities such as seagrasses, coastal salt marsh, mangroves, and tropical hardwood hammock.

South Dade Agriculture Area Study (proposed completion 2001)

The study describes the current situation and outlook for agriculture and should be completed in 2001. The main purpose ofthe study is the collection and analysis of data concerning the long-term economic outlook of the agriculture industry andthe development of recommendations to enhance the industry’s economic viability. The University of Florida, undercontract with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, is conducting the study. A consultant to behired by Miami-Dade County will utilize the information gathered in this study to conduct a more comprehensive land usestudy that will examine both agriculture and the retention of rural areas in South Dade.

South Dade Watershed Plan (proposed completion 2002)

This plan is currently being developed and should be completed in 2002. The South Dade Watershed is located in thesoutheastern portion of Miami-Dade County, between Everglades and Biscayne National Parks. The plan has receivedpartial funding from the Florida Legislature. Completion of the plan is not yet funded.

The South Dade Watershed Plan will address the following: the identification and protection of lands essential forpreserving the environmental, economic and community values of Biscayne National Park (BNP), numeric standards forquality, quantity, timing and distribution of waters into BNP, assurance of compatible land uses and zoning decisions in thewatershed of BNP consistent with long-term objectives for sustainability, and methods and policies for Best ManagementPractices of all sources of run-off in the BNP watershed.


Dredged Material Management Plan for the ICW in Dade County, Florida (proposedcompletion 2000)

The Florida Inland Navigation District has established advisory committees to develop long-range dredged material manage-ment plans for each segment of the ICW. The portion extending through Biscayne Bay is currently under study.

The Port of Miami Comprehensive Master Plan (completed 2000)The recently updated Port of Miami master plan contains several long-range environmental planning elements, includingspoil disposal, mitigation banking, storm water system development, and sewage infrastructure improvements. The portanticipates economic growth and associated needs for additional slips for deep draft vessels, proposed navigation improve-ments in channels and turning basins, and upland space for supporting infrastructure.

Miami River Master PlanThe Miami River Master Plan Report was approved but no other formal action was taken by the City of Miami. There iscurrently a joint committee that will build on this plan to develop a new plan that can be adopted by the city.

The Miami River Study Commission Report (completed 1998)The Miami River Commission was established by the Florida Legislature to serve as a clearinghouse and coordination bodyfor all types of issues related to the Miami River. The “Miami River Call to Action” is a report prepared by the River StudyCommission to highlight their activities. The Commission attempts to be inclusive of all Miami River stakeholders andseeks to build consensus among all those stakeholders.

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan (completed 1996)

This plan is aimed at protecting the coral reef and surrounding marine communities from the northern most portion ofBiscayne National Park to west of the Dry Tortugas National Park and back to the Everglades National Park on the Gulf sideof the Florida Keys. The plan was developed with the aid of an advisory committee composed of twenty-five stakeholders.The plan takes an ecosystem approach to natural resource management.

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality Protection Program(completed 1993)This plan contains a Water Quality Action Plan that has specific solutions to addressing water quality problems and estab-lishes corrective actions to solve water quality problems in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.

The Final Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery ManagementPlans of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (completed 1998)

This plan and its accompanying comprehensive amendment integrate habitat management with federal fishery manage-ment. Biscayne Bay is identified as essential habitat for species such as pink shrimp, spiny lobster, and Spanish mackerel.

Management Plans in Other Water Bodies

The Management Team was also interested in how other water bodies were managed to see if there were relevant applica-tions to Biscayne Bay. At the initial symposium in January, 2000, a presentation was made about the management andrestoration efforts in Chesapeake Bay. The Team requested and received information on the management of the four


estuaries in Florida that are part of the National Estuary Program: Indian River Lagoon, Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, andCharlotte Harbor. In addition, during a Management Survey Team meeting, representatives from the Indian River LagoonNational Estuary Program and the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program gave presentations about the managementefforts regarding their water bodies.

The Chesapeake Bay Program

William Matuszeski, Director of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office, spoke at the BBPI symposium in January, 2000.The Chesapeake Bay Program is recognized as one of the premier watershed restoration efforts in the United States.

The Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program

Martin Smithson, Director of the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, gave a presentation on the managementstructure at the IRLNEP. He provided information describing the institutional arrangements for coordinating and conduct-ing the implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan for Indian River Lagoon. The CCMP wasapproved in 1996.

Mr. Smithson indicated that partnering with organizations like the Water Management District is key to success in theirprogram. The IRLNEP does not get involved in land use decisions and the group has no regulatory authority.

The IRLNEP does provide a forum for discussing and recommending land use decisions that affect the Indian RiverLagoon on a limited basis. They also take part in comprehensive plan reviews.

The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary ProgramTiffany Lutterman, Director of the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program gave a presentation on the managementstructure at the CHNEP. The CHNEP is a relatively new program.

In the CHNEP, partnering agencies fund the program, prioritize projects and share in implementation of projects. TheCHNEP recommends conservation of priority areas (land) in their management plan but does not address other land useissues.

FINDINGSThe management of Biscayne Bay is often guided by the management plans created by individual agencies. Managementplans encompass a variety of activities including: public involvement, education, access, protection, restoration/enhance-ment, monitoring, enforcement, research, and evaluation. In this document, the Management Team will use the term“management processes” to mean all management activities which include the development, implementation, and coordina-tion of management plans.

The Management Team recognizes that there are a significant number of quality management efforts currently under-way in Biscayne Bay. Those management efforts are based on years of experience and have resulted in significant improve-ments to the bay. The Management Team finds that any future management activities should build upon existing efforts,rather than “reinventing the wheel.”

Funding is an important issue in the implementation of management processes and plans. The existing managementprocesses and plans have received some significant funds in the past. Many plans and projects designed to enhance the bayexist but funds are not currently available for implementation. The Management Team finds that a greater and moreconsistent level of funding would help management processes be more effective in the restoration and enhancement ofBiscayne Bay.


In addition, matching funds can be a significant resource to assist with the implementation of management processes.The Surface Water Improvement and Management Program (SWIM) is a good example. During the late 1980’s and early1990’s, the Florida Legislature provided regular appropriations through SWIM for Biscayne Bay water resources projects.This investment, which totaled more than $10 million over an eight year period, was more than tripled by matchingcontributions provided by local governments and the South Florida Water Management District. These appropriationssupported priority stormwater improvement, habitat restoration, monitoring and studies, pollutant source removal, andpublic awareness projects that had been identified through the Biscayne Bay SWIM Plan. Although the Legislature hascontinued to allocate funding for Biscayne Bay on a project-by-project basis, a renewed commitment to SWIM wouldprovide financial support for Biscayne Bay water projects that have already been identified and create incentive for match-ing-fund partnerships with local and regional governments. The Management Team finds that State funding for manyBiscayne Bay projects would leverage matching funds greatly enhancing the value of the initial allocation.

The management of Biscayne Bay involves a large number of local, state, and federal agencies as well as non-govern-mental organizations and individuals. Communication and coordination among so many entities are always challenging. Inmany ways, inter-agency coordination is good and in other ways, improvement is needed. The Management Team findsthat improved inter-agency coordination would enhance management processes and result in better protection andrestoration of bay resources.

Biscayne Bay is a significant resource and it is used by the citizens and visitors of South Florida in a multitude ofdifferent ways. Users of the bay are impacted by the management decisions concerning Biscayne Bay. The ManagementTeam finds that all stages of the management process should include community stakeholder input.

Protection and enhancement of Biscayne Bay are dependent on public support. Public education and outreach helpcreate enthusiasm and support for Biscayne Bay. Current educational and outreach programs for the public are disjointedand sporadic. The Management Team finds that coordinated education and outreach programs for the public should beimplemented.

Biscayne Bay is part of a larger ecosystem and it is directly impacted by the activities on the land around it and by thewaters connected to it. Also, the Biscayne Bay watershed will be affected by implementation of the ComprehensiveEverglades Restoration Plan, and managers must be prepared to deal with issues such as potential changes in freshwaterinflow. The Management Team finds that the existing management processes for Biscayne Bay would be more effectivein protecting the bay with a stronger consideration of ongoing regional restoration plans and land-based activitiesoccurring in the watershed.

RECOMMENDATIONSBackground: Achieving Consensus RecommendationsThe Management Team believes that management efforts in Biscayne Bay are effective but they see a number of areas wheremanagement efforts might be improved by: an increased level of funding, greater involvement of community stakeholders,increased public education, and more inter-agency coordination. The Management Team has spent a significant amount oftime discussing methods to better address these areas. The team had lengthy discussions about forming a group of individu-als to address these and other important management issues. Several types of groups were identified and discussed includingan advisory committee, an inter-agency task force, issue-based teams, and public forums. Ultimately, the Management Teamselected an issue team incorporated into the existing structure of the Working Group of the South Florida EcosystemRestoration Task Force.


The Management Team spent several months designing a group to deal with Biscayne Bay issues that would carry littleor no risk with its creation. For instance, the proposed group would strongly support the important safeguards in place toprotect the Bay, such as the Biscayne Bay Acquatic Preserve Act. The proposed group would not have any authority overagencies or any regulatory authority. Recognizing that the bay impacts a large variety of interests and that it is important toinclude all perspectives in management processes, the proposed group would be representative of stakeholder interests andinclude citizens in its membership.

The Management Team discussed the potential benefits and the possible drawbacks of creating an advisory committeeto deal with Biscayne Bay issues. In the end, some members of the Management Team believed that the potential problemsthat may arise with the creation of an independent advisory committee were too great to recommend it. The potential thatan independent advisory committee might evolve into something that is not acceptable to the Management Team was toogreat a risk to overcome.

The only type of group that enjoys the support of the Management Team is a Biscayne Bay Project Coordination Teamas part of the Working Group of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. The Management Team took greatcare to design a group that would be acceptable to all members of the team and that would be able to meet the challengesfacing Biscayne Bay. Members of the Team remain concerned, however, that their recommendations might be modified andthat a group might be formed that does not include all of the elements that they included in their proposed model. Theelements of their proposed group are the result of months of discussion in order to produce a group that is representative ofBiscayne Bay interests, inclusive of both key public and private stakeholders, and focused upon protecting and enhancingthe values of the bay. The Management Team believes that all of the components of their proposed model are importantand necessary for an effective and acceptable group.

Recommendations

• Any future management activities should build upon existing efforts, rather than “reinventing the wheel.”

• The State should provide a greater and more consistent level of funding to help management processes be moreeffective in the restoration and enhancement of Biscayne Bay.

• The State should fund additional Biscayne Bay projects in order to leverage matching funds, greatly enhancing thevalue of the initial state allocation.

• Inter-agency coordination should be improved to enhance management processes and result in better protectionand restoration of bay resources.

• All stages of the management process should include community stakeholder input.

• Coordinated education and outreach programs for the public should be implemented.

• Existing management processes for Biscayne Bay should include a stronger consideration of ongoing regionalrestoration plans and land-based activities occurring in the watershed.

Overarching Recommendation

• In order to achieve implementation of the above recommendations, the Management Survey Team recommendsthe formation of the Biscayne Bay Project Coordination Team as part of the Working Group of the South FloridaEcosystem Restoration Task Force as outlined below.


The Biscayne Bay Project Coordination Team as part of the Working Group of theSouth Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force.

Goal

The goal of the Biscayne Bay Project Coordination Team is:

To preserve, protect, and enhance Biscayne Bay and its connected waters so that the ecological and aesthetic values ofBiscayne Bay may endure for the enjoyment of future generations.

Funding

Funding for establishment, administrative costs, and dedicated staff of the Biscayne Bay Project Coordination Teamshould be provided through an appropriation from the Florida Legislature (see Establishment and Staffing below).

Establishment

The Working Group of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force should establish the Biscayne Bay ProjectCoordination Team according to the structure outlined below. The Task Force should provide administrativesupport similar to what it provides for other teams.

Staffing

The Biscayne Bay Project Coordination Team shall have dedicated staff who are funded by the State Legislature andemployed by an agency on the Project Coordination Team. Dedicated staff will help insure the success of theTeam and help insulate the Team from shifting agency priorities. Ad hoc staff support from participating agenciesshould be used as warranted.

Membership

The Biscayne Bay Project Coordination Team shall have eighteen initial members. The team shall have the followingmembership:

1-Member of the Florida State Legislature from Dade County

1-Miami-Dade County Commissioner selected by the Commission

2-Municipal representatives selected by the Dade League of Cities

8-Agency members, one from each of the following agencies:

• Florida Department of Environmental Protection

• Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

• South Florida Water Management District

• Army Corp of Engineers

• Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

• Biscayne National Park

• Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management

• Miami-Dade Department of Planning and Zoning


6-Citizens, two representing each of the following interests:

• environmental

• marine user group(s)

• at large

The Working Group of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force shall select the six citizen members from acandidate list prepared by the designated members of the Biscayne Bay Project Coordination Team.

Functions

The Biscayne Bay Project Coordination Team shall perform the following functions:

• Provide a forum for the public to be involved

• Provide information to the public about activities and issues related to Biscayne Bay

• Provide a forum for interagency coordination and communication

• Identify priority issues for action and create Biscayne Bay issue teams as needed to assist the Project Team

• Make recommendations on key issues to agencies and organizations

• Identify goals and performance measures related to key issues

• Assess the achievement of goals

• Identify and pursue funding on key issues

• Review elements of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan that affect Biscayne Bay

Guiding Principles

As the Biscayne Bay Project Coordination Team conducts its activities, it shall adhere to the following guiding prin-ciples:

• The team shall not supplant agency authority or have any regulatory authority.

• The work of the team shall be consistent with the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act.

• The team shall serve in an advisory role and shall not serve as a direct granting agency.

• Team membership shall be representative of Biscayne Bay interests.

• Team members shall be knowledgeable of Biscayne Bay issues.

• The team shall recognize the importance of watershed management for the protection of Biscayne Bay.


APPENDIXMANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY DOCUMENTS

MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................................245Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Rule and act .................................................................................................... 246BISCAYNE BAY MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................................................................... 247Biscayne Bay Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan.................................................................. 250Biscayne National Park General Management Plan ........................................................................................... 251Biscayne National Park Resources Management Plan ...................................................................................... 252CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT–Comprehensive Review Study ...........................................................254COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN ........................................................................................................ 257COORDINATING SUCCESS:Strategy for Restoration of the South Florida Ecosystem ........................................ 258Dante B. Fascell Port of Miami-Dade, 1999 Master Development Plan ........................................................... 263FINAL HABITAT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION: ............................................................................................264Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary .......................................................................................................... 267Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary .......................................................................................................... 268LONG RANGE DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 270The Miami River: a Call to Action ....................................................................................................................... 277South Dade Agriculture Area Study ................................................................................................................... 278Oleta River State Recreation Area .................................................................................................................... 282Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Recreation Area ................................................................................................ 283John Pennekamp State Park - Key Largo .......................................................................................................... 285Barnacle State Historic Site .............................................................................................................................. 287SOUTH DADE WATERSHED PLAN ............................................................................................................................... 288The South Dade Watershed Project ................................................................................................................... 290South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan ...................................................................................................... 291


Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Rule and actWho did the plan?Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (now Department of Environmental Protection).

When was the plan completed?On June 11, 1974, House Bill No. 4018 provided for the establishment of Biscayne Bay as an aquatic preserve. Thepreserve’s management authority and criteria are currently contained in 258.397 (originally 258.165) and 18-18 F.A.C.(Transferred from 16-Q, F.A.C., effective March 20, 1980). The aquatic preserve rule was adopted by the Board of Trusteesof the Internal Improvement Trust Fund under authority found in 258.165(4)(a), F.S.

What is the status of the plan?Current (18-18 F.A.C. under authority of 258.397, F.S.). Please find 18-18 F.A.C. and 258.397 F.S., attached.

What is the geographic area of the plan?

Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve encompasses the entire bay including Card Sound in both Dade and Monroe Counties, lessBiscayne National Park. A complete description of the preserve boundaries can be found in 18-18.002. Please find attacheda state map approximating the preserve.

What is the scope of the plan?

The Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve was established for the purpose of preserving and enhancing Biscayne Bay and allnatural waterways tidally connected to the bay in essentially natural condition so that its biological and aesthetic values mayendure for the enjoyment of future generations. The Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Rule was promulgated to clarify theresponsibilities of the department in carrying out its land management functions as those apply within the preserve.

What are the key goals or objectives that directly relate to the Biscayne BayPartnership Initiative?Implementation and responsibility for environmental permitting of activities in the preserve are vested in the FloridaDepartment of Environmental Protection. 18-18 F.A.C. is considered cumulative with other applicable rules. Managementcriteria contained in 18-18 include restrictions on dredging and filling within the preserve as well as conditions on uses,sales, leases or transfers of interests in lands or materials held by the Board. Additional provisions are provided for in the ruleunder 18-18.013 (2), (3) as follows:

(2) The board encourages the creation of further management criteria or plans to enhance or protect the preserve. Amanagement plan, which includes an inventory of resources and a management scheme to further aid in the maintenanceand enhancement of the biological and aesthetic qualities of the preserve shall be prepared by the department or by otherpublic or private entities in cooperation with the department. Such criteria and plans, when developed, may be submitted tothe board for consideration and inclusion in the board’s management plan for the preserve.

(3) Nothing in these rules shall serve to eliminate or alter the requirements or authority of other governmental agencies,including counties and municipalities, to protect or enhance the preserve provided that such requirements or authority arenot inconsistent with the Act and these rules.

For further information, contact David Mayer, Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, (305) 372-6583.


BISCAYNE BAY MANAGEMENT PLANWho did the plan?Miami Dade County

When was the plan completed?March 1981

What is the status of the plan?Adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in 1981.

Major recommendations have been implemented, incorporated into the Code of Miami-Dade County or the Compre-hensive Development Master Plan, or continue to be implemented through ongoing monitoring, restoration, recreation,water management and acquisition programs. For more details, see list of Restoration and Enhancement projects at the endof this outline.

What entities were involved in the plan?The Biscayne Bay Management Plan (BBMP) was jointly prepared by the Miami Dade County Planning Department andDepartment of Environmental Resources Management (DERM). The County Manager appointed a five-member PolicyAdvisory Committee to oversee the general scope and direction of the project. Additionally, a large Scientific/TechnicalCommittee was selected from universities, federal and state agencies to provide input and insure accuracy. A Local Govern-ment Liaison Committee composed of representatives of shoreline municipalities was established to assure that cities wereinformed of and had an opportunity to review various waterfront land use policies.

Over a period of several years, staff compiled data and drafted documents, which were then reviewed by the advisorygroups, as well as numerous Bay users and community interest groups at workshops and hearings. The draft plan was revisedto reflect this input and approved by the Board of County Commissioners.

One of the principal recommendations in the plan involved the establishment of the Biscayne Bay ManagementCommittee, a 15-member coordinating body composed of representatives of local, state and federal government, as well ascitizens. This committee provided a forum for ongoing public discussion of major policy issues and developed recommenda-tions for action by various public agencies.

DERM’s Biscayne Bay Restoration and Enhancement Program, a major implementation tool of the Plan, has beenfunded over the years by Miami-Dade County with assistance from the State of Florida, the Florida Department of Environ-mental Protection, FIND, and the South Florida Water Management District.

What is the geographic area of the plan?The Plan focused on Biscayne Bay and adjoining waters from the Broward County line to Card Sound. The planning areaextended inland a short distance to include the lower reaches of canals and waterfront.

What is the scope of the plan?The BBMC is comprehensive in scope and addressed a broad range of interests and concerns. These were broadly categorizedinto three major headings: 1) ENVIRONMENTAL, 2)USER-RELATED, and 3) MANAGEMENT. Concerns under each ofthese major categories include the following:


• ENVIRONMENTAL: canal discharge and stormwater runoff; water clarity; recreational and developmental userimpacts; and habitat management.

• USER-RELATED: conflicts among user groups; need for more marine-oriented recreational facilities; need toimprove visual and physical access; persistent trash and litter

• MANAGEMENT: need for less duplicative, more locally accountable Bay management program; need to resolveoverlapping and fragmented jurisdictions

What are the key goals or objectives that directly relate to the Biscayne BayPartnership Initiative?The goals and objectives of the BBMP are generally identical to the process outlined by the BBPI. Although almost 20 yearsold, the BBMC purposes and list of major objectives remain relevant. The following information is quoted directly from theBBMP.

“Purpose of the Bay Management Plan. This plan is intended to serve five basic purposes: (1) to define the scope of concernsand programs that should be addressed within a comprehensive, coordinated approach to Bay Management, (2) to recom-mend programs and actions that should be undertaken in order to move towards comprehensive and coordinated manage-ment of Biscayne Bay, (3) to identify a coordinating committee structure to oversee the scope and direction of programs thatare recommended, (4) to identify those agencies and community based groups that have responsibility for implementingcertain management programs, and (5) to identify sources of funding or community based resources that can be utilized toachieve a coordinated approach to Bay management.”

“Primary Goal. The primary goal of BBMP project is to develop a unified, Countywide management plan for the entire baysystem, including its adjacent wetlands, embayments and contiguous developed shorelands in a manner that will maintain orenhance where necessary, those physical, chemical, biological and aesthetic qualities that provide the basic character andvalue of this resource.”

“Program Objectives. In order to realize this primary goal, the following program objectives shall be achieved:

• To address and resolve the jurisdictional issues relating to Biscayne Bay in order to provide long-term managementcapability;

• To provide a wide array of water oriented opportunities at the water’s edge, consistent with the Primary Goal;

• To enhance physical and visual access thereby increasing the potential for environmentally sound utilization andattractiveness of Biscayne Bay for the public at large

• To identify and maintain, or enhance where necessary, those biological communities that are essential to the long-term viability of Biscayne Bay;

• To optimize the quality and quantity of marine life

• To maintain, or enhance where necessary, water quality that permits safe water contact, recreation and propagationof fish and wildlife;

• To provide protection for endangered, threatened or rare species of plants and animals that exist within the watersof Biscayne Bay or the adjacent coastal wetlands;

• To avoid irreversible or irretrievable commitments of Bay resources;

• To seek funding for activities which are necessary to achieve the Primary Goal;


• To promote water transportation and enhance the Bay’s contribution to the economic health of the communitythrough marina development and other appropriate measures consistent with the Primary Goal;

• To provide continuing monitoring of the Bay in order to assemble an adequate data base for Bay management.”

Additionally, during development of the Plan, the Policy Advisory Committee and the Board of County Commissionersdeveloped a prioritized list of Restoration and Enhancement projects as follows (*indicates project completed; +indicatesproject continuing):

1. Improve public awareness*+

2. Improve access*+

3. Identify areas that need stabilization or wave energy abatement*

4. Obtain baseline data on fisheries and fisheries pathology*+

5. Monitor existing mitigation/restoration efforts*+

6. Develop fisheries management program*+

7. Obtain baseline water chemistry obtain baseline circulation data*+

8. Stabilize shorelines*+

9. Map benthic community*

10. Riprap public areas*

11. Identify sources of turbidity*

12. Obtain baseline data on water epidemiology and pathology {sanitary quality}*+

13. Plant mangroves*+

14. Install artificial reefs*+

15. Plant seagrass*

16. Fill deep holes*

17. Redistribute circulation

18. Remove fine bottom sediments

Additional Comments and Observations:

The advantages of this particular plan are that it has a broad, comprehensive scope and was developed through a commu-nity-inclusive process. Many of the most significant policies and recommended actions have been largely implemented andhave formed a foundation for continuing science-based management activities. Most remain relevant today. The BiscayneBay Management Committee coordinating structure was generally successful, until its sunset by the Board of CountyCommissioners in 1993.

The disadvantage of the BBMP is that it is older and not familiar to some present-day interests. Also, the planningboundary did not extend fully into the watershed, and although the Plan recognized canal discharge and freshwater deliveryas principal concerns, it did not envision a major South Florida/Everglades restoration. These deficiencies could be addressedby updating the supporting data in the Plan, utilizing information collected for the local CDMPs, the Biscayne Bay SWIM


Plan, the C & SF Restudy and other more narrowly focused ongoing planning projects. Goals and objectives could also beupdated or expanded to address current concerns and regional restoration programs.

For further information, contact: Dr. Susan M. Markley, Miami-Dade DERM, (305) 372-6863.

Biscayne Bay Surface Water Improvement and Management PlanWho did the plan?South Florida Water Management District.

When was the plan completed?

First version was completed in 1988. The last major version was completed November 1995.

What is the status of the plan?

The plan is still used as a reference and to justify projects, however, it is need of revision. The plan has been quite successfulin the implementation of a wide range of projects and promoting strategic partnerships. Implementation of projects relatedto the SWIM plan is believed to have resulted in significant improvements in water quality in Biscayne Bay. Unfortunately,the Legislature has not provided full funding for SWIM implementation. A new plan: the South Florida Water ManagementDistrict Florida Forever Work Plan will likely supersede the SWIM plan, but will include the same goals and objectives withland acquisition added.

What entities were involved in the plan?South Florida Water Management District and Florida Department of Environmental Protection were the lead Stateagencies. State review also included FDACS, FDCA, FG&FC. Local participation included Miami-Dade County, especiallyDERM, and several municipalities, especially the City of Miami. Federal participation included the Department of Interiorand U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

What is the geographic area of the plan?The plan boundary included the primary watershed and coastal water areas from the Miami-Dade Broward line to U.S.Highway 1 at Barnes Sound.

What is the scope of the plan?Project activities included basin actions plans, monitoring, wetland restoration, urban stormwater systems retrofitting,modeling, diagnostics and enforcement, public education, and research.

What are the key goals or objectives that directly relate to the Biscayne BayPartnership Initiative?The plan included three goals that should be considered by the Initiative:

• Maintain and improve water quality to protect and restore natural ecosystems and compatible human uses ofBiscayne Bay.


• Improve the quantity, timing and distribution of freshwater flows and circulation characteristics of Biscayne Bay asneeded to protect and restore natural ecosystems.

• Protect environmental resources of Biscayne Bay and adjacent areas.

The plan includes 16 objectives, and 60 specific strategies.

For further information, contact: Rick Alleman, SFWMD, (561) 682-6716.

Biscayne National Park General Management PlanWho did the plan?

The National Park Service.


January 1983. [Biscayne National Monument was established in 1968 “in order to preserve and protect for the education,inspiration, recreation, and enjoyment of present and future generations a rare combination of terrestrial, marine, andamphibious life in a tropical setting of great natural beauty” (PL 90-606). The monument was expanded in 1974 (PL 93-477) and again in 1980 (PL 96-287) when it was re-designated as a National Park.]

What is the status of the plan?This plan is adopted and largely implemented. Begun in 1981, this plan has become outdated in some respects but in generalthe management concepts are still appropriate. It is scheduled for update in the next year when it will be revised withextensive public input.

What entities were involved in the plan?In addition to the National Park Service, consultants listed in the plan included:

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Florida State Historic Preservation Office

Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection

Florida Park Service

Dade County DERM

Dade County Parks and Recreation Dept.

Dade County Dept. of Planning

University of Miami Rosenstiel School


What is the geographic area of the plan?The geographic area covered by the Plan encompasses Biscayne National Park (BNP) boundaries. Biscayne National Parkcovers 181,000 acres (733 km2). BNP is a marine park with emergent land representing only 5% of the total park area. Thetotal land area within the Park is 9,075 acres and a marine/estuarine area of 171,925 acres. The Park is divided into threemajor environments: coral reef, estuarine (the Bay), and terrestrial. The terrestrial portion of the Park is comprised of anarrow fringe of mangrove shoreline along the Park’s western boundary and 42 keys or islands. These islands, with theexception of the Arsnickers Keys, form a north-south boundary between Biscayne Bay and the coral reef tract.


This is the primary management document for the Park. It describes the laws upon which the plan is based, establishesmanagement zones, and formulates management objectives. It was developed with extensive public input. It defines compre-hensive programs for the management of the Park’s natural and cultural resources, designed to protect Park values from theimminent threats perceived by Congress. In addition, it recognizes the interconnection of the natural and human dominatedsystems and provides for work on issues affecting the Park that originate from outside of the Park boundaries.

This plan provides for all aspects of the Park and serves as a superstructure for planning. All other plans are derived from thisdocument. It serves as the means of implementing congressional intent and Park Service charge under its legislative author-ity.

What are the key goals or objectives that directly relate to the Biscayne BayPartnership Initiative?

Because the area within the boundaries of Biscayne National Park encompasses such a large part of Biscayne Bay, it may bestated that the goals and objectives set forth in the BNP General Management Plan directly relate to the Biscayne BayPartnership Initiative. Especially relevant are the sections dealing with laws, regulations, and the management of theresource.

For further information, contact Linda Canzanelli, BNP, (305) 230-1144.

Biscayne National Park Resources Management PlanWho did the plan?

Biscayne National Park (BNP) and the National Park Service.

When was the plan completed?This plan was completed in 1995. This plan is currently in draft form but is scheduled for updates and final changes for finalapproval by December 2000.

What is the status of the plan?Adopted. Some action plans have been funded, implemented, or are in progress.


What entities were involved in the plan?Biscayne National Park; the National Park Service; consultants have varied with each specific problem statement, butgenerally have included relevant county, state, and federal agencies or reference documents from those agencies.


Biscayne National Park covers 181,000 acres (733 km2). BNP is a marine park with emergent land representing only 5% ofthe total park area. The total land area within the Park is 9,075 acres and a marine/estuarine area of 171,925 acres. The Parkis divided into three major environments: coral reef, estuarine (the Bay), and terrestrial. The terrestrial portion of the Park iscomprised of a narrow fringe of mangrove shoreline along the Parks western boundary and 42 keys or islands. These islands,with the exception of the Arsnickers Keys, form a north-south boundary between Biscayne Bay and the coral reef tract.


It implements the BNP General Management Plan with regard to natural and cultural (i.e., historic and pre-historic)resources. Identifies resource problems and sets goals. Some problem statements have specific action plans.

This plan addresses the resource management issues facing Biscayne National Park. It proposes a strategy to deal withthese issues in the context of a final desired condition. The geographic area covered by the Plan encompasses BNP bound-aries. In addition it recognizes the interconnection of the natural and human-dominated systems and provides for work onissues affecting the Park that originate from outside of the Park boundaries.

The water resource issues covered by this plan include: water quality; water quantity; estuarine recharge; turbidity fromvessel operations; health of seagrasses, hardbottom, fish and coral reef communities; oil spill containment; protection, statusand trends of protected species; and general baseline monitoring. The goals of this plan are divided into several categories:1) Maintain and improve water quantity and quality; 2) Develop and understanding of the Parks resources, their interrela-tionships, and various components required for management; 3) Protect and preserve natural resources of the park andadjacent areas; 4) Develop a better understanding and appreciation of Biscayne’s cultural resources; and 5) Protect andpreserve cultural resources.


Because the area within the boundaries of Biscayne National Park encompasses such a large part of Biscayne Bay, it may bestated that the goals and objectives set forth in the BNP Resources Management Plan directly relate to the Biscayne BayPartnership Initiative.

For further information, contact Linda Canzanelli, BNP, (305) 230-1144.


CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT–Comprehensive Review StudyWho did the Plan?U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District

South Florida Water Management District


April 1999

What is the status of the Plan?Plan will be sent to congress for approval and funding on July 1, 2000

What entities were involved in the Plan?U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District


U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Park Service

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission

U.S. Geological Survey

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force

NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service

What is the geographic area of the Plan?The sixteen county area of central and south Florida which comprise the Kissimmee – Lake Okeechobee – EvergladesWatershed.

What is the scope of the plan?The purpose of the Restudy is to reexamine the C&SF Project to determine the feasibility of structural or operationalmodifications to the project essential to the restoration of the Everglades and the south Florida ecosystem. The restudy willalso provide for other water-related needs such as urban and agricultural water supply and flood protection in those areasserved by the project. The intent of the study is to evaluate conditions within the study area and make recommendations tomodify the project to restore important functions and values of the Everglades and south Florida ecosystem and plan for thewater resources needs of the people of south Florida for the next 50 years.



The following projects, directly relate to the enhancement of Biscayne Bay:

Biscayne Bay Coastal WetlandsThe feature includes pump stations, spreader swales, stormwater treatment areas, flowways, levees, culverts, and backfillingcanals located in southeast Miami-Dade County and covers 13,600 acres from the Deering Estate at C-100C, south to theFlorida Power and Light Turkey Point power plant, generally along L-31E. The purpose of this feature is to rehydratewetlands and reduce point source discharge to Biscayne Bay. The proposed project will replace lost overland flow andpartially compensate for the reduction in groundwater seepage by redistributing, through a spreader system, available surfacewater entering the area from regional canals. The proposed redistribution of freshwater flow across a broad front is expectedto restore or enhance freshwater wetlands, tidal wetlands, and nearshore bay habitat. Sustained lower-than-seawater salini-ties are required in tidal wetlands and the nearshore bay to provide nursery habitat for fish and shellfish. This project isexpected to create conditions that will be conducive to the reestablishment of oysters and other components of the oysterreef community. Diversion of canal discharges into coastal wetlands is expected not only to reestablish productive nurseryhabitat all along the shoreline but also to reduce the abrupt freshwater discharges that are physiologically stressful to fish andbenthic invertebrates in the bay near canal outlets. More detailed analyses will be required to define target freshwater flowsfor Biscayne Bay and the wetlands within the redistribution system. The target(s) will be based upon the quality, quantity,timing and distribution of flows needed to provide and maintain sustainable biological communities in Biscayne Bay,Biscayne National Park and the coastal wetlands. Additionally, potential sources of water for providing freshwater flows toBiscayne Bay will be identified and evaluated to determine their ability to provide the target flows. The component BiscayneBay Coastal Canals as modeled in D-13R and the Critical Project on the L-31E Flowway Redistribution are smaller compo-nents of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands feature described above.

South Miami-Dade County ReuseThis feature includes a plant expansion to produce superior, advanced treatment of wastewater from the existing SouthDistrict Wastewater Treatment Plant located north of the C-1 Canal in Miami-Dade County. The initial design of thisfeature assumed that the plant will have a capacity of 131 million gallons per day. More detailed analyses will be required todetermine the quality and quantity of water needed to meet the ecological goals and objectives of Biscayne Bay. Addition-ally, due to the water quality issues associated with discharging reclaimed water into Biscayne National Park, an OutstandingFlorida Water, such as potential failures of the treatment system and the limited ability to control contaminant inputs to thesanitary sewer system serving the treatment facility, other potential sources of water to provide required freshwater flows tosouthern and central Biscayne Bay should be investigated before pursuing the reuse facility as a source. If it is determinedthat other, more appropriate sources are not available, the reuse project will be initiated by determining the parameters ofconcern, the necessary wastewater treatment requirements, and the appropriate treatment technology to be implemented.The purpose of this feature is to provide additional water supply to the South Biscayne Bay and Coastal Wetlands Enhance-ment Project. In order to attain the superior level of treatment, construction of an add-on pretreatment and membranetreatment system to the existing secondary treatment facility will be necessary. Superior water quality treatment features willbe based on appropriate pollution load reduction targets necessary to protect downstream receiving surface waters (BiscayneBay).

C-111N Spreader CanalThis feature includes levees, canals, pumps, water control structures, and a stormwater treatment area to be constructed,modified or removed in the Model Lands and Southern Glades (C-111 Basin) area of Miami-Dade County. This feature


enhances the C-111 Project design for the C-111N Spreader Canal with the construction of a stormwater treatment area,the enlarging of pump station S-332E and the extension of the canal under U.S. Highway 1 and Card Sound Road into theModel Lands. The initial design of this feature pumps water from the C-111 and the C-111E Canals into a stormwatertreatment area prior to discharging to Southern Everglades and Model Lands. This features also calls for filling in thesouthern reach of the C-111 Canal and removal of structures S-18C and S-197. The final size, depth, location and configu-ration of this feature will be determined through more detailed planning and design. The purpose of this feature is toimprove deliveries and enhance the connectivity and sheetflow in the Model Lands and Southern Glades areas, reduce wetseason flows in C-111, and decrease potential flood risk in the lower south Miami-Dade County area.

Central Lake Belt Storage Area

This feature includes pumps, water control structures, a stormwater treatment area, and a combination above-ground and in-ground storage reservoir with a total storage capacity of approximately 190,000 acre-feet located in Miami-Dade County.The initial design of the reservoir assumed 5,200 acres with the water level fluctuating from 16 feet above grade to 20 feetbelow grade. A subterranean seepage barrier will be constructed around the perimeter to enable drawdowns during dryperiods and to prevent seepage losses. A pilot test of this technology will be conducted prior to final design of this compo-nent to determine construction technologies, storage efficiencies, impacts upon local hydrology, and water quality effects.Since this facility is to be located within the protection area of Miami-Dade County’s Northwest Wellfield, the pilot test willalso be designed to identify and address potential impacts to the County’s wellfield which may occur during constructionand/or operation. The stormwater treatment area was assumed to be 640 acres with the water level fluctuating up to 4 feetabove grade. The final size, depth and configuration of these facilities will be determined through more detailed planningand design to be completed as a part of the Water Preserve Areas Feasibility Study.

The purpose of the feature is to store excess water from Water Conservation Areas 2 and 3 and provide environmentalwater supply deliveries to: (1) Northeast Shark River Slough, (2) Water Conservation Area 3B, and (3) to Biscayne Bay, inthat order, if available. Due to the source of the water (Water Conservation Areas 2 and 3), it is assumed that water storedin this facility is of adequate quality to return to the Everglades Protection Area and Biscayne Bay; however, the final size,depth and configuration of these facilities, including treatment requirements, will be determined through more detailedplanning and design to be completed as a part of the Water Preserve Areas Feasibility Study. Excess water from WaterConservation Areas 2 and 3 will be diverted into the L-37, L-33, and L-30 Borrow Canals, which run along the easternboundaries of the Water Conservation Areas, and pumped into the Central Lake Belt Storage Area. Water supply deliverieswill be pumped through a stormwater treatment area prior to discharge to the Everglades via the L-30 Borrow Canal and areconfigured L-31N Borrow Canal. If available, deliveries will be directed to Biscayne Bay through the Snapper Creek Canalat Florida’s Turnpike. A structure will be provided on the Snapper Creek Canal to provide regional system deliveries whenwater from the Central Lake Belt Storage Area is not available.

For further information, contact: Julio Fanjul, OED—SFERTF, (305) 348-1833.


COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLANCoastal Management Element for Miami-Dade County

Who did the plan?

Miami-Dade County’s Planning Department with considerable public input provided by a Citizen’s Advisory Task Force


Miami-Dade County’s Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) was originally adopted by the Board of CountyCommissioners in 1975. Although the original CDMP did not contain a discrete Coastal Element, it included objectives tominimize shoreline development and drainage practices detrimental to Biscayne Bay. A separate Coastal ManagementElement first appeared in the 1988 CDMP, pursuant to the Growth Management Act of 1985. Chapters 163 (Intergovern-mental Programs) and 380 (Land and Water Management), F.S., require that all local governments abutting the AtlanticOcean, or which include waters of the state where marine species of vegetation constitute the dominant plant community,include a Coastal Management Element (CME) in their CDMP.

What is the status of the plan?As noted above, the plan has been adopted and is being implemented.

What entities were involved in the plan?As noted above, Miami-Dade County’s Planning Department wrote the plan with considerable public input provided by aCitizen’s Advisory Task Force.

What is the geographic area of the plan?The coastal area in Miami-Dade County includes the embayments from Dumfoundling Bay to Card Sound, their tributariesand contiguous shore lands and the sedimentary barrier and reef islands that form the oceanic boundaries of the coastallagoons, the offshore reef tracts and submerged communities on the continental shelf.


The stated purpose of Miami-Dade County’s CME is to protect coastal resources, protect human lives and property fromnatural disasters, improve public access to beaches and shores, maintain or increase the amount of shoreline devoted towater-dependent or water-related uses, and to preserve historical and archaeological sites within the coastal area.

What are the key goals or objectives that directly relate to the Biscayne BayPartnership Initiative?The stated goals of the CME are to provide for the conservation, environmentally sound use and protection of all naturaland historic resources; limit public expenditures in areas subject to destruction by natural disasters; and protect human lifeand property in the coastal area of the county.

Miami-Dade County’s current CME contains 12 objectives. Objectives 1 through 7 are most closely related to theBiscayne Bay Initiative, while Objectives 8 through 12 focus on natural disaster planning, preparation, response and


recovery. This summary will, therefore, focus on the first seven objectives, which are to: 1) Protect, conserve and enhancecoastal wetlands and living marine resources in Dade County; 2) Protect, conserve, or enhance beaches and dunes andoffshore reef communities; 3) Reduce the number of exceedances of water quality standards for coastal and estuarine waters;4a) Increase the acreage of benthic, coastal wetland and coastal hammock habitat that is publicly owned; 4b) Improvewildlife values by protecting endangered and threatened animal species and restoring and managing coastal habitats; 5)Increase the amount of shoreline devoted to water-dependent, water-related, and publicly accessible uses in Dade County; 6)Preserve traditional shoreline uses and minimize user conflicts and impact of man-made structures and activities on coastalresources; and 7) Improve the public’s awareness and appreciation of Dade County’s coastal resources and water-dependentand water-related uses.

The Port of Miami is addressed through a separate Subelement included in the CDMP Transportation Element. One ofthree major goals in this Subelement states that the Port shall minimize detrimental effects on the environment in carryingout its daily operations and expansion program. Under this goal, specific reference is made to detaining stormwater prior todischarge to Biscayne Bay and minimizing turbidity associated with dredging.

For further information, contact: Cindy Dwyer, Miami-Dade County P & Z, (305) 375-2835.

COORDINATING SUCCESS:Strategy for Restoration of the South Florida EcosystemWho did the plan?

The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (the task force), which sought extensive involvement from localagencies, citizen groups, nonprofit organizations, and other interested parties as part of its assessment for this strategy.


What is the status of the plan?The authorization of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), a major component of the restoration effort, iscurrently pending before the Congress. The estimated $7.8 billion cost of the CERP will be split 50-50 between the federalgovernment and nonfederal sponsors.

The task force meets regularly to report on progress, coordinate consensus, and identify opportunities for improvement.

What is the geographic area of the plan?The South Florida ecosystem is an 18,000-square-mile region of subtropical uplands, wetlands, and coral reefs that extendsfrom the Chain of Lakes south of Orlando through the reefs southwest of the Florida Keys. This ecosystem not only supportsthe economy and the quality of life of the Floridians and the Native American Indians who live there, but also enriches thelegacy of all Americans. It encompasses many nationally significant conservation areas, including Everglades and BiscayneNational Parks, Big Cypress National Preserve, the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, and theFlorida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.

This ecosystem is sustained by water, and it has been seriously degraded by disruptions to the natural hydrology. Engi-neered flood control and water distribution systems for agriculture and urban development have dewatered large areas and


greatly altered the quantity, timing, and distribution of water flows in other locations. Agricultural runoff and urbanstormwater have introduced phosphorus and other contaminants into the water systems, polluting lakes, rivers, and wet-lands. Discharges of stormwater into estuaries and coastal waters have severely degraded aquatic habitats. Groundwater isthreatened by saltwater intrusion and other pollutants. These impacts have stressed the natural system, as evidenced by

• Fifty percent reduction in the original extent of the Everglades

• Ninety percent reduction in wading bird populations

• Sixty-nine species on the federal endangered or threatened list

• Declines in commercial fisheries in Biscayne and Florida Bays

• Nineteen percent decline in living corals in the last decade


The purpose of the document is to describe the existing federal and nonfederal programs designed to restore and sustain theimperiled South Florida ecosystem. Many federal, state, tribal, and local entities are working to address the deterioratingecological conditions in South Florida. The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (the task force) coordinatesand tracks the work. Congress directed the task force to produce a restoration strategy. The document provides the informa-tion needed to coordinate and integrate the restoration effort.

Congress identified four elements to be included in the document. They wanted it to outline how the restoration effortwill occur, identify the resources needed, establish responsibility for accomplishing actions, and link the strategic goalsestablished by the participants to outcome-oriented goals. The document describes how the restoration effort is beingcoordinated: The task force members have agreed upon a vision for the results; they have established three broad goals andmeasurable objectives for the work that needs to be accomplished to achieve that vision; they have identified the projectsneeded to achieve the objectives; they are coordinating those projects so that they are mutually supportive and non-duplicative; and they are tracking progress toward both the work-oriented goals and the results-oriented vision. Thisstrategy, along with the vision, goals, objectives, performance measures, and individual project data (including cost, respon-sible agency, and targeted completion dates) are all included in the document.

The strategy document is for planning purposes only, is subject to modification, and is not legally binding on any of thetask force members. Each task force member and the interests they represent retain all of their sovereign rights, authorities,and jurisdiction for implementation of the projects contained within the document.

The integrated federal and nonfederal effort to restore, preserve, and protect the ecosystem will take many decades. Thedocument and funding needs may be revised over time based on information gained through monitoring and study.

What entities were involved in the plan?

Six federal departments (twelve agencies), seven Florida state agencies or commissions, two American Indian tribes, sixteencounties, scores of municipal governments, and interested groups and businesses from throughout South Florida are partici-pating in the restoration effort. Four sovereign entities (federal, state, and two tribes) are represented.

The task force was created in 1993 as a federal interagency partnership, with informal participation by the State ofFlorida, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. The Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1996 authorized the operation of the task force and provided for specific membership and duties. Pursuant to itsstatutory duties, a task force working group of agency and tribal representatives (the working group) works to resolveconflicts among participants, coordinate research, assist participants, prepare an integrated financial plan, and report toCongress. The task force does not have any oversight or project authority, and participating agencies are responsible for


meeting their own targeted accomplishments. The task force’s role as a forum in which ideas are shared and consensus issought enhances the productivity of each member government or agency effort

What are the key goals or objectives that directly relate to the Biscayne Bay Partner-ship Initiative?The participants in the task force share the vision of a healthy South Florida ecosystem that supports diverse and sustainablecommunities of plants, animals, and people. To this end, hundreds of different entities have been working for over a decadeto restore and preserve more natural hydrology in the ecosystem, to protect the spatial extent and quality of remaininghabitat, to promote the return of abundant populations of native plants and animals, and to foster human developmentcompatible with sustaining a healthy ecosystem. The past, current, and future efforts of governmental entities in SouthFlorida involve more than 200 projects related to three primary work goals. Subgoals and objectives have been establishedfor the first two work goals and will be reported for the third goal in future updates to the document.

Goal 1: Get the water right

Subgoal 1-A: Get the hydrology right

Objective 1-A.1: Provide 1.6 million acre-feet of surface water storage by 2037

Objective 1-A.2: Develop aquifer storage and recovery systems capable of storing 1.7 billion gallons perday by 2020

Objective 1-A.3: Modify 279 miles of impediments to flow by 2019

Subgoal 1-B: Get the water quality right

Objective 1-B.1: Construct 122,000 acres of stormwater treatment areas by 2036

Objective 1-B.2: Prepare plans, with strategies and schedules for implementation, to comply with TMDLs(total maximum daily loads) for 100 percent of impaired water bodies by 2011

Goal 2: Restore, preserve, and protect natural habitats and species

Subgoal 2-A: Restore, preserve, and protect natural habitats

Objective 2-A.1: Acquire 1.95 million acres of land for habitat protection by 2015

Objective 2-B.2: Protect 20 percent of the coral reefs by 2020

Subgoal 2-B: Control invasive exotic plants

Objective 2-B.1: Prepare management plans for the top twenty South Florida invasive exotic plant speciesby 2010

Objective 2-B.2: Achieve maintenance control status for Brazilian pepper, melaleuca, Australian pine, andOld World climbing fern in all natural areas in the region by 2020

Objective 2-B.3: Complete an Invasive Exotic Plant Prevention, Early Detection, and Eradication Plan by2005

Goal 3: Foster compatibility of the built and natural systems

The task force members believe through accomplishing these objectives they will achieve the restoration of the ecosys-tem. The region’s rich and varied habitats will become healthy and productive. Imperiled species will recover, and the largenesting rookeries of wading birds will return.


The appropriate agencies will track progress toward restoring the ecosystem through approximately 200 performancemeasures developed as part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, plus additional measures for areas not coveredby the CERP, such as the South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan. These measures, which range from the number of acres ofperiphyton in Everglades marshes to the frequency of water supply restrictions in urban and agricultural areas, represent themyriad physical, biological, and human elements that interrelate as parts of the ecosystem and are important to ecosystemhealth. The agencies will provide data to the task force, which will update the document for transmittal to Congress, thestate legislature, and the councils of the tribes.

The following measures are a representative subset of a broader list of indicators for tracking success. Many of theserepresent end results that may take up to fifty years to realize. Interim targets, which focus on earlier indications of succes-sional change, will allow assessment of incremental progress.

• Improved status for fourteen federally listed threatened or endangered species, and no declines in status for thoseadditional species listed by the state, by 2020

• A 90 percent recovery of the acreage and number of tree islands existing in 1940, and a health index of 0.90 (where0 = death is imminent, 1 = completely stress free) (Interim target: A 20 percent improvement in the general healthindex of the tree islands, and no further loss in the total number of tree islands by 2020)

• Healthy oyster beds in the major estuaries, such as the St. Lucie Estuary and those in Biscayne Bay

• Four thousand nesting pairs of wood storks in the Everglades and Big Cypress basins (Interim target: Fifteenhundred nesting pairs by 2010)

• Water quality within the Everglades ecosystem that meets federal, state, and tribal water quality standards

• A lake-wide average phosphorus concentration of 40 parts per billion (ppb) total in the open-water regions of LakeOkeechobee

• Water provided to all users during droughts up to the level of certainty of a one-in-ten-year frequency of occurrence

• Nesting roseate spoonbills in the coastal zone of the southwestern Gulf Coast between Lostman’s River and theCaloosahatchee River; and 1,000 nesting pairs in Florida Bay, including 250 nesting pairs in northeast Florida Bay

• A 65-75 percent coverage of Florida Bay with high-quality seagrass beds

• A long-term commercial harvest of pink shrimp on the Dry Tortugas fishing grounds that equals or exceeds the ratethat occurred during the years 1961-1962 to 1982-1983; and an amount of large shrimp in the long-term averagecatch exceeding 500 pounds per vessel-day

• An average annual loading to the St. Lucie Estuary of no more than 400 pounds of phosphorus per 1,000 acre-feetof discharge

• The capture and storage of most of the excess freshwater currently lost to the ocean and the gulf, and delivery ofthe water when and where it is needed

Restoration StrategyThe task force provides a forum for consensus building and issue engagement among the entities involved in restoring theSouth Florida ecosystem. This is a collaborative role, not one in which the task force can dictate to its members. Becauseon-the-ground restoration is accomplished through the efforts of the individual task force member agencies, they are theones that are ultimately responsible for their particular programs, projects, and associated funding. This is an importantdistinction. The task force has no overriding authority to direct its members. Instead, the members are accountable individu-ally to their appropriate authorities and to each other for the success of the restoration.


The task force and its members coordinate and track the restoration effort as follows:

Focus on goals. The document establishes specific goals and measures that define the scope of the restoration initiative andanswer these fundamental questions: What will the restoration partners accomplish? When will the restoration effort bedone? What key indicators will signal progress and success?

Coordinate projects. To be effective, individual projects should contribute to the vision and goals, be timely, and supportrather than duplicate other efforts. The document includes a master list of restoration projects and includes informationabout goals and objectives, start and finish dates, lead agencies, and funding.

Track and assess progress. The task force will facilitate the implementation of the individual entities’ adaptive assessmentprocesses to track and assess progress. Adaptive assessment involves constantly monitoring project contributions andindicators of success to determine the actual versus expected results of various actions. This process acknowledges that notall the data needed to restore the South Florida ecosystem are available now. As project managers track incremental progressin achieving objectives they may raise “red flags” alerting the task force members that a project (1) is not on schedule or (2)is not producing the projected outputs or anticipated results. The ability to anticipate problems early helps to minimize theireffect on the total restoration effort. Management responses may involve revising the project design, evaluating changingresource needs, or working collaboratively on projects that fall behind. Projects that are not proving effective may bereplaced with new projects. Because each participating agency is responsible for its particular programs, projects, andfunding, such decisions are made by the entities involved.

Facilitate the resolution of issues and conflicts. Disagreements and conflict are to be expected given the scope, complexity,and large number of sponsors and interests involved in ecosystem restoration. In particular, the ability to resolve existingconflicts is complicated by (1) the large number of governmental entities involved at the federal, state, tribal, and locallevels; (2) the differing, and sometimes conflicting, legal mandates and agency missions among the entities involved; and (3)the diverse stakeholder interests represented by the member agencies, which include environmental, agricultural, NativeAmerican, urban, and commercial values.

The task force will facilitate the prevention and resolution of conflict to the extent possible by clarifying the issue(s),identifying stakeholder concerns, obtaining and analyzing relevant information, and identifying solutions. The workinggroup will regularly track issues in dispute and report to the task force when there are unresolved issues. Although theseefforts are intended to facilitate conflict resolution, opportunities will always exist for parties to pursue conflicts throughlitigation, although litigation is time consuming, costly, and uncertain. Further, litigation diverts resources from restorationefforts. Unfortunately, judicial resolution of legal claims does not always resolve the underlying conflict to the satisfaction ofevery party.

For further information, contact: Julio Fanjul, OED—SFERTF, (305) 348-1833.


Dante B. Fascell Port of Miami-Dade1999 Master Development PlanWho did the plan?The Miami-Dade County Seaport Department prepared the 1999 Port of Miami-Dade Master Development Plan.

When was the plan completed?The first Port of Miami Master Development Plan was adopted in 1969, the next in 1979, and the last plan in 1988. The1999 Port Master Development Plan represents the Seaport Department’s five and fifteen year planning horizons. The 1999Plan was drafted in April 1999. Because the plan is adopted as part of Miami-Dade County’s overall growth managementplan (the Comprehensive Development Master Plan), a predetermined schedule for transmittal, revision and comment wasfollowed, as is required for all comprehensive plan amendments under guiding state law. Text revisions were completed byAugust 1999, and final policy revisions were completed in February 2000.

What is the status of the plan?The plan was adopted by the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners on March 28, 2000, and transmitted forfinal compliance review to the Florida Department of Community Affairs on April 12, 2000.


In addition to being prepared by the Miami-Dade County Seaport Department, the plan received extensive review andcomment from other county departments, regional and state agencies, and the county Planning Board and Board of CountyCommissioners.


The plan addresses the port facility including on-island facilities, navigational channels and berthing areas, and off-islandsupport facilities. Environmental and transportation issues were reviewed in larger context areas.

What is the scope of the plan?The Port of Miami Master Development Plan addresses existing and proposed port facilities and operations under thespecific requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, which requires deep water ports to prepare data and analysis and toimplement policies.

What are the key goals or objectives that directly relate to the Biscayne Bay Partner-ship Initiative?

The Port of Miami is one of the Western Hemisphere’s most important commercial ports. Owned and operated by Miami-Dade County’s Seaport Department, the Port of Miami is geographically proximate to major international shipping lanesand the largest cruising region in the world. The Port of Miami handled more than 813,000 containers of cargo and almostthree million cruise passengers in 1998. As a result of this activity, the Port of Miami is ranked as the eleventh largestcontainer port in the United States and largest cruise homeport in the world.


Combined cargo and cruise operations at the Port of Miami generate large and growing economic benefits for thecounty and South Florida. The total economic impact of Port of Miami operations is estimated at more than $8 billion perannum. More than 45,000 jobs are directly or indirectly attributable to port operations, most of which are high-value, skilledemployment positions.

The goals, objectives and policies of the port master plan guide port operation and expansion. The 1999 plan includessignificant new language that provides for the following:

• Maximize existing facilitiesEncourage user efficienciesImprove on-island resourcesSecure off-island resources

• Develop new facilities on- and off-island

• Strengthen ties to mainland

• Ensure that off-island expansion is consistent with surrounding communities

• Provide public access/parkland

• Protect environment

• Coordinate more aggressively on transportation issues

• Explore joint-use, mixed-use and joint-venture opportunities to maximize port goals

• Incorporate findings of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ 1999 General Reevaluation Report

• Study and improve infrastructureStormwaterWastewaterPotable water

For further information, contact: Charles Towsley, Port Director, (305) 371-7678.

FINAL HABITAT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION:Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the SouthAtlantic Fishery Management CouncilAnd

Final Comprehensive Amendment Addressing Essential Fish Habitat in FisheryManagement Plans of the South Atlantic Region

Who did the plan?

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). This is one of eight regional councils in the U.S. created under theMagnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 to manage living marine resources in federal waters. TheSAFMC is responsible for the conservation and management of fishery stocks in the South Atlantic Region (see GeographicArea, below). The council operates under NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and its membership includes


commercial and recreational fishermen, marine scientists, and state and federal fisheries managers, who combine theirknowledge to prepare Fishery Management Plans (FMPs).


October 1998.


The plan was fully approved by NMFS; the announcement confirming approval was issued on June 23, 1999. The SAFMCand NMFS are to review and update the habitat components of FMPs at least every 5 years. This will include preparation ofa revised amendment for any FMP if new information becomes available.

What entities were involved in the plan?South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and its partners on the Habitat Advisory Panel and Coral Advisory Panel.The Habitat Panel is divided into four state subpanels, each with representatives from the state marine fisheries agency, U.S.Fish & Wildlife Service, state coastal zone management agency, a conservation organization, and commercial and recre-ational fishermen. The panel also includes representatives from the NMFS, EPA, and Atlantic States Marine FisheriesCommission.

What is the geographic area of the plan?The inshore estuarine habitats and offshore marine habitats out to the 200-mile limit off the coasts of North Carolina,South Carolina, Georgia, and east Florida to Key West.

What is the scope of the plan?The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 sets forth a new mandate to identify andprotect marine and anadromous fisheries habitat. It requires the Fishery Management Councils and Secretary of Commerceto identify Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for species under federal FMPs. EFH is defined as “those waters and substratenecessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” “Fish” includes finfish, crabs, shrimp, and lobsters.Federal agencies, which fund, permit, or carry out activities that may adversely impact EFH, are required to consult withNMFS regarding potential adverse effects of their actions on EFH, and NMFS is directed to comment on any state agencyactivities that would impact EFH. Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) are also identified by their importance toecological function, their sensitivity to human-induced degradation, or their rarity.

The Act mandates an effort to integrate fishery management and habitat management by stressing the dependency ofhealthy fisheries on maintenance of viable and diverse estuarine and marine ecosystems. In its plan, the SAFMC developeda holistic analysis of fishery habitats in the Southeast with information on the requirements for each life history stage ofmanaged species, including habitat variables that control or limit distribution, abundance, reproduction, growth, survival,and productivity. Habitat requirements of prey species and actions that cause reductions in prey populations are to beaddressed. FMPs are also to analyze how fishing and non-fishing activities influence habitat function on an ecosystem orwatershed scale.



The purpose of the Habitat Plan is to further the national marine resource management goal of maintaining sustainablefisheries. Essential to achieving this goal is the maintenance and protection of suitable marine fishery habitat quality andquantity for managed species. Biscayne Bay is one of the South Atlantic estuarine drainage areas specifically identified in theplan, and it is discussed in relation to occurrence of habitat types such as mangroves and seagrass.

The Comprehensive Amendment contains amendments related to habitat for each of the South Atlantic Fishery Manage-ment Plans. Each amendment has two goals: 1) to identify EFH, and 2) to establish EFH-HAPCs. Those FMPs related toBiscayne Bay are:

• Shrimp: Biscayne Bay is mapped as an area of high abundance of juvenile pink shrimp. EFH includes inshoreestuarine nursery areas, offshore marine habitats, and interconnecting water bodies. Areas that meet criteria forHAPCs include all coastal inlets, all state-designated nursery habitats of particular importance to shrimp, andstate-identified overwintering areas.

• Snapper-grouper complex (includes gray snapper): Biscayne Bay is mapped as an area of high abundance of juvenilegray snapper. For specific life stages of the gray snapper, EFH includes seagrass, tidal creeks, and mangrove fringe.Areas that meet criteria for HAPCs include all coastal inlets, mangrove habitat, seagrass habitat, and allstate-designated nursery habitats of particular importance to snapper.

• Coastal migratory pelagic complex (includes Spanish mackerel): Biscayne Bay is mapped as an area where juvenileSpanish mackerel are common. EFH includes all coastal inlets and state-designated nursery habitats of particularimportance to coastal pelagic species. HAPCs include Atlantic Coast estuaries with high numbers of Spanishmackerel.

• Red drum: Biscayne Bay is mapped as an area where red drum juveniles are rare, but historically the red drum was acommon species in the bay, until it declined rapidly beginning in the 1940s. In 1998, the state ended an 8-yearunsuccessful attempt to restock red drum into Biscayne Bay. EFH includes mangrove fringe, sea grasses, oyster reefs,and tidal creeks. Areas that meet criteria for HAPCs include all coastal inlets, all state-designated nursery habitatsof particular importance to red drum, and habitats identified for submerged aquatic vegetation.

• Spiny lobster: Biscayne Bay and Card Sound are identified as areas meeting the criteria of HAPC for spiny lobster.EFH includes shallow subtidal bottom, seagrass, soft sediments, coral and live/hard bottom, sponges, algal commu-nities, and mangrove prop roots.

• Coral, coral reefs. and live/hard bottom: Biscayne Bay and Biscayne National Park are identified as areas meetingthe criteria of HAPC for coral, coral reefs, and live/hard bottom.

Prepared by Carole Goodyear, formerly with NOAA/NMFS, (305) 361-4255.


Florida Keys National Marine SanctuaryFinal Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

Who did the plan?

The plan was prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S. Department ofCommerce. The National Marine Sanctuary Program is administered by the National Ocean Service of NOAA. A widerange of state, federal, and local agency partners assisted in the development of the management plan.


The Final Plan was implemented July 1, 1997. The development of the plan began in the Spring of 1991 and a draft planwas released in April 1995. The Final Plan was released in September of 1996, but was not officially implemented until July1997.

What is the status of the plan?The plan was officially implemented in July 1997 and it is extensively in the management of the FKNMS.

What entities were involved in the plan?Various segments and agencies in state, federal, and local governments were involved in the development of the FinalManagement Plan. A Sanctuary Advisory Council comprised of 25 stakeholders had an active role in the development ofthe comprehensive management plan.

What is the geographic area of the plan?The plan covers the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary which is a 2800 square nautical mile area that runs offshorefrom the northernmost portion of the Biscayne National Park along the 300’ depth contour all the way to the west of theDry Tortugas National Park and back to the Everglades National Park on the Gulf side of the Florida Keys. Card Sound andBarns Sound are both located within the boundary of the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary boundary includes 65% state waters and35% federal waters. The boundary only included the marine waters and goes to mean high water. Canals and open man-made bodies of water that are included within the Sanctuary.


The Final Management Plan for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary contains some of the most innovative toolsavailable for protecting America’s coral reef and its surrounding marine communities for the use and enjoyment of futuregenerations. Sanctuary planners are confident that they have achieved the best balanced approach to protecting Sanctuaryresources through a management plan based on common sense and practical solutions. The final plan represents the mostcomprehensive approach ever attempted at protecting a marine community as diverse as that in the Florida Keys and in asocio-economic setting as complex as that in the Keys.

The Sanctuary’s final management plan was compiled using the best available science and most current managementplanning techniques available in this country. Dozens of experts in managing marine resources were consulted in thedevelopment of the Sanctuary plan. The final plan provides management tools to solve major problems occurring in themarine environment of the Keys that were identified during the planning process. Those problems are separated into the


following major categories: deteriorating water quality; declining health of the living coral reefs; physical damage to coralreefs and seagrass communities; user conflicts, visitor safety, and quality of life issues; and declining marine resources.

The final management plan contains both innovative and practical solutions to solving the problems in the marineenvironment of the Sanctuary that were identified during the planning process. Most of the solutions in the Sanctuary planare non-regulatory in nature and serve to provide resource protection through simple management actions. Those solutionsare found in the following broad management categories: improvement of water quality; coral reef and seagrass protection;resource enhancement; education and outreach; research and monitoring; volunteerism; and quality of life issues.

The Final Management Plan for the FKNMS can be reviewed on the Sanctuary’s webpage at:http://www.fknms.nos.noaa.gov.

What are the key goals or objectives that directly relate to the Biscayne Bay Partner-ship Initiative?The ecosystem approach to management of natural resources, coupled with an integrated and comprehensive approach tomanagement are two key objectives of the FKNMS Final Management Plan that relate to the BBPI. Additionally, thedecline in water quality in the Sanctuary is directly attributable to land-base sources coupled with changes linked to globalclimate change. The impact of water quality degradation in the Florida Keys on the coral reefs and seagrasses is a majorconcern to resource managers and citizens in the area. These water quality problems directly relate to similar issues in DadeCounty and the health of Biscayne Bay directly relates to the health of Sanctuary resources.

For further information, contact: Billy Causey, FKNMS, (305) 743-2437.

Florida Keys National Marine SanctuaryWater Quality Protection Program

Who did the plan?

The plan was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection,and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). EPA had the lead in the development of the plan,which was authorized by Congress in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act. A high level WaterQuality Steering Committee, Chaired by the Regional 4 Administrator for EPA, and Co-Chaired by the Deputy Secretaryfor DEP, had oversight in the development of the WQPP. The WQSC is comprised of state, federal, county, and municipalrepresentatives along with members of the public and the Sanctuary Advisory Council.

When was the plan completed?The WQPP was completed and implemented in the Spring of 1993. The development of the plan began in the Spring of1991 and ran parallel to the development of the FKNMS comprehensive management plan.

What is the status of the plan?The plan was officially implemented in the Spring of 1993 and it is used extensively to address water quality issues in theFKNMS. A Water Quality Action Plan in the Final Management Plan for the FKNMS integrates Sanctuary water qualityactivities with those identified in the WQPP. The two plans are comprehensively integrated to address water qualityproblems within the Sanctuary.


What entities were involved in the plan?EPA led the development of the WQPP and involved agencies in state, federal, and local governments. The WQPP devel-opment included a considerable amount of input from resource managers, scientists, stakeholders, and the general public.The Water Quality Steering Committee had an oversight role in the development of the WQPP.


The plan covers the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary which is a 2800 square nautical mile area that runs offshorefrom the northernmost portion of the Biscayne National Park along the 300’ depth contour all the way to the west of theDry Tortugas National Park and back to the Everglades National Park on the Gulf side of the Florida Keys. Card Sound andBarns Sound are both located within the boundary of the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary boundary includes 65% state waters and35% federal waters. The boundary only included the marine waters and goes to mean high water. Canals and open man-made bodies of water that are included within the Sanctuary.


The decline in the nearshore water quality of the Florida Keys was recognized by Congress when they designated theSanctuary and directed the EPA to work with the State and NOAA to develop a Water Quality Protection Program(WQPP). The final plan contains a Water Quality Action Plan that has specific solutions to addressing water qualityproblems and establishes corrective actions to solve water quality problems. The purpose of the Water Quality ProtectionProgram is to recommend priority corrective actions and compliance schedules addressing point and non point sources ofpollution to restore and maintain the living coral reefs and other critical marine life in the Sanctuary. The WQPP consists offour interrelated components: 1) corrective actions that reduce water pollution directly by using engineering methods,prohibiting or restricting certain activities, tightening existing regulations, and/or increasing enforcement; 2) monitoringthat includes a comprehensive, long-term water quality monitoring program has been designed to provide information aboutthe status and trends of water quality and biological resources in the Sanctuary; 3) research/special studies that are designedto identify and understand cause and effect relationships involving pollutants, transport pathways, and biological communi-ties of the Sanctuary; and 4) public education and outreach programs that are designed to increase public awareness of theSanctuary, the WQPP, and pollution sources and impacts on Sanctuary resources.

The final plan also addresses water quality problems ranging from Florida Bay to the nearshore waters of the Keys. TheSanctuary brings National, as well as a State, interests and resources to resolving the water quality problems in the Keys. Thefinal plan provides tools for improving water quality within the Sanctuary and identifies specific projects to determinesources of water quality problems. The plan uses demonstration projects to assess the best available technology for treatingwastewater and provides for monitoring to determine what is or is not working. The Water Quality Action Plan outlinesresearch and monitoring programs that will provide the best scientific data for basing management decisions.

The final management plan integrates the Sanctuary into the South Florida ecosystem restoration effort as a majorecological component of the ecosystem. The plan integrates the Sanctuary’s water quality protection program with local,State, and other Federal programs that address water quality in the Sanctuary. The National significance of the Sanctuaryresources has attracted other Federal and State agency interests in restoring the water quality of the Sanctuary.

More information can be obtained by visiting our website:http://www.fknms.nos.noaa.gov.



The ecosystem approach to management of natural resources, coupled with an integrated and comprehensive approach tomanagement are two key objectives of the FKNMS Final Management Plan and the Water Quality Protection Program asthey relate to the BBPI. Additionally, the decline in water quality in the Sanctuary is directly attributable to land-basesources coupled with changes linked to global climate change. The impact of water quality degradation in the Florida Keyson the coral reefs and seagrasses is a major concern to resource managers and citizens in the area. These water qualityproblems directly relate to similar issues in Dade County and the health of Biscayne Bay directly relates to the health ofSanctuary resources.

For further information, contact: Billy Causey, FKNMS, (305) 743-2437.

LONG RANGE DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMFor the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Florida

Who did the plan?Florida Inland Navigation District (District or FIND).


In 1986 the District initiated a program of long-range dredged material management.


Work on the program is scheduled to continue through the year 2000, at which time all of the 12 County Plans in theDistrict will have been completed and implemented. The waterways in Dade and Broward Counties have been the last toundergo analysis. This work is being performed, for FIND, by the consulting engineering firm of Taylor Engineering, Inc. ofJacksonville, Florida.

To date this planning effort in the other 10 counties of the District has identified approximately 44.6 million cubic yards(cyds.) of sediment to be maintenance dredged from 342 miles of waterway channel over the next 50 years. Of this dredgingvolume, 21.5 million cubic yards of sand have been identified as potentially beach quality material and 6 permanent beachplacement areas have been identified and designed for these materials. The other 23.1 million cyds. of sediment containslevels of silt that preclude this material from being placed on the beach. These sediments will be temporarily stored in 50upland containment sites where the material will be selectively excavated and used beneficially. Additionally, at least 3million cyds. of beach quality materials will be offloaded from existing sites in the vicinity of ocean inlets and transported toocean beaches thereby returning this sediment to the coastal system.


The District’s program is being executed in close cooperation with the Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers. This work isbeing performed, for FIND, by the consulting engineering firm of Taylor Engineering, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida.


What is the geographic area of the plan?When fully implemented this program will provide a permanent infrastructure of management facilities for all maintenancematerial dredged from the 374 miles of Intracoastal Waterway channel connecting Fernandina Harbor in Nassau Countywith Miami Harbor in Dade County and for 15 miles of the Okeechobee Waterway from its confluence with the IntracoastalWaterway to the first navigation lock (collectively referred to as the waterway).


The identification and permitting of suitable dredged material management areas for the Atlantic Intracoastal andOkeechobee Waterways in Florida has become increasingly difficult. This has resulted from the nature of dredging, therequirements of handling and storing dredged material, and the environmentally sensitive and rapidly developing areas inwhich these operations are performed.

The District’s program, executed in close cooperation with the Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers, comprises threemain elements: (1) a two-phased plan development and property acquisition element, (2) a facility permitting and construc-tion element, and (3) a facility operation element. Program execution begins with the development of long-range dredgedmaterial management plans for the waterway on a county-by-county basis (Phase I of the planning and property acquisitionprocess). Upon finalization of each plan, Phase II of the planning and property acquisition process begins with site boundarysurveys. The process continues with detailed environmental site characterizations, soils testing, topographic surveys,preliminary facilities design and site plans, site operation and management plans, and a summary of expected costs for sitedevelopment and operation. Attachment A provides the details on this two phased plan development process. All of thisinformation is then used for property acquisition and facilities permitting.


Once dredged material management needs have been addressed, resources can be directed to the control of sediment in-flowinto waterways such as Biscayne Bay and Miami Harbor. Each long range dredged material management plan includes ageneral identification of the source of the sediments entering into the waterway channel. This sediment in-flow is beingaddressed by the District and other government agencies through cooperative projects involving inlet management,stormwater control and shoreline stabilization. If successful, sediment in-flow reductions will save local and federal mainte-nance dredging funds, increase the length of time to fill the upland sites to capacity, reduce the impact of suspended sedi-ments on the environment of Florida’s waterways and increase retainage of these sediments in our beach and upland systems.

Attachment A–Development of a Long Range Dredged Material Management Pro-gram for the Atlantlc Intracoastal Waterway In FlorldaIntroduction

The identification and permitting of suitable dredged material management areas for the Intracoastal Waterway in Floridahave become increasingly difficult. This has resulted from the nature of dredging, the requirements of handling and storingdredged material, and the environmentally sensitive and rapidly developing areas in which these operations are performed.In response to this situation, the Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) initiated, in 1986, a program of long-rangedredged material management. When fully implemented this program will provide a permanent infrastructure of manage-ment facilities for all maintenance material dredged from the 374 miles of Intracoastal Waterway channel connectingFernandina Harbor in Nassau County with Miami Harbor in Dade County.

The FIND’s program, executed in close cooperation with the Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers, comprises three


main elements: (1) a two-phased plan development and property acquisition element, (2) a facility permitting and construc-tion element, and (3) a facility operation element. Program execution begins with the development of long-range dredgedmaterial management plans for the Waterway on a county-by-county basis (Phase I of the planning and property acquisitionprocess). Upon finalization of each plan, Phase II of the planning and property acquisition process begins with site boundarysurveys. The process continues with detailed environmental site characterizations, soils testing, topographic surveys,preliminary facilities design and site plans, site operation and management plans, and a summary of expected costs for sitedevelopment and operation. All of this information is then used for property acquisition and facilities permitting.

Background

Since its formation in 1927, the FIND has served as the state governmental body responsible for maintaining the ICWWchannel along Florida’s east coast between Fernandina Harbor and Miami. As such, the FIND must provide the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers (COE) with sites suitable for placing material dredged from the authorized federal navigation channel.

Prior to the increased environmental awareness of the 1970’s and the recognition by various federal and state regulatoryagencies of the value of estuarine wetlands, a short-term economic approach guided management of dredged material.Engineering, cost, and operational considerations determined the design and execution of channel maintenance projects. Amajority of the existing easements for the placement of dredged material were located entirely within the sovereign waters ofthe state and included both open water areas and expanses of pristine salt marsh and mangrove wetlands. Additionally, manylandowners with holdings adjoining the Waterway sought to improve the development potential of wetlands by grantingdisposal easements and allowing the unconfined placement of maintenance material. This approach, combined with thedesire of the dredging contractor to maximize operational efficiency, resulted in the proliferation of numerous small spoilmounds and islands lining the Waterway.

As a result of society’s increased environmental awareness and the scientific knowledge supporting it, the unconfinedplacement of dredged material within wetland areas is no longer a responsible approach to the maintenance of the ICWW.Neither is it a realistic approach given present-day agency imposed permitting constraints. Current state and federal legisla-tion mandates that all dredging and dredged material management activities satisfy a spectrum of environmental require-ments dealing with water quality, habitat protection, threatened and endangered species, and the filling of wetlands. Specificprohibitions against the unconfined placement of dredged material in wetlands are contained in Sections 301 and 404 of theClean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 403) administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Section 10 of the Rivers andHarbors Act administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Chapters 253, 258, and 403 Florida Statutes andChapters 17-4, 18-20, and 18-21 of the Florida Administrative Code administered by the Florida Department of Environ-mental Protection. In addition, local county and municipal governments typically address dredge-and-fill issues in localcomprehensive planning documents within guidelines established by the state. The long-range implications of theseconstraints have become more apparent in the ensuing years as existing sites reach capacity and as the identification andpermitting of dredged material management sites become increasingly difficult. Moreover, the intensive developmentpressure being experienced throughout coastal Florida has made the acquisition of additional sites an ever more expensiveproposition.

In order to secure its ability to maintain the ICWW within the existing framework of engineering, operational, andenvironmental constraints, the FIND initiated a 15-year program of long-term planning and site acquisition to provide ameans for accommodating all maintenance material dredged from the Waterway during the next 50 years and beyond.

Program Overview

The varied character of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Florida, as described above, required that a wide variety offactors and changing circumstance be considered in the development of a comprehensive and realistic dredged materialmanagement plan for the 374 miles of channel. The process by which this is being accomplished is addressed in the follow-ing sections.


To accomplish the overall program objective, work performed for the Waterway in each County is divided into two phases.The first phase addresses the formulation of a long range dredged material management plan for the entire length of channelwithin the County, the preparation of a plan document, and the preparation of a set of mylar photo-based plan sheets whichshow the federal channel right-of-way, cut by cut, and summarize all pertinent information for that sheet regarding historicaldredging, shoaling, sediment characteristics, and recommended management sites. The second phase of work in eachCounty finalizes the site selection process by the performance of a detailed site investigation of the primary candidate sitewithin each dredging reach of the County. A detailed documentation package for each site is developed from these investi-gations to support the property acquisition process and the procurement of the necessary permits for long term maintenancedredging activities.

Phase I - Development of a Long Range Dredged Material Management Plan

Formulation of each County plan begins with a detailed analysis of all available historical data and engineeringdocuments pertaining to previous dredging activity, shoaling, sediment characteristics, and all existing FINDeasements or properties available to the Corps for dredged material management. This data allows for the rationaldevelopment of a characterization of the channel shoaling throughout the County, the spatial variability of theserates, and where possible the physical and chemical characteristics of the material to be dredged. Concurrent withthis effort, the existing inventory of FIND easements and sites is evaluated for feasibility of future use within thepresent day regulatory environment, and the practicality of dike construction and site access. The Waterwaychannel in the County is then divided into operational dredging reaches by factoring in the overall availability ofundeveloped land, and operating pumping distances. A 50 year dredged material management requirement foreach reach can then be calculated using the results of the historical data analysis. In arriving at this estimate, theprojected 50 year dredged volume is scaled upward using a combined overdredging and bulking factor of 2.15.

Having established the usable inventory of dredged material management sites within the County, as well as theoperational dredging reaches of the Waterway and their associated 50 year dredging requirements, work then proceeds onthe identification of dredged material management options and candidate sites to meet these requirements. A set of guidingprinciples are first established to focus the site identification and selection process. These are referred to as the ManagementConcept, which can and does vary from reach to reach depending upon changing constraints and requirements. In general,however, each management concept attempts to satisfy as closely as possible the following conditions:

• All future dredged material will be confined to upland areas with good road access, except for those reaches wherebeach disposal is the preferred alternative.

• Sites will be established to provide centralized management in a minimum number of locations per operating reachof the Waterway.

• Management sites will be designed and operated as permanent facilities with the capability of the site beingemptied and reused over multiple fifty year periods.

Candidate sites meeting these criteria are then identified using high altitude infrared photography, black and whiteaerial photography, wetlands inventory maps, soils inventories, and other available documents. Typically, 30 to 40 such sitesare identified for a given County by this process. Following this identification process, each site is then subjected to furtherscrutiny by means of an on-the-ground preliminary inspection. Finally, a bank of primary and secondary sites for each reachis selected using the set of site evaluation listed below:

I. Engineering/Operational Considerations

A. Capacity.


B. Adequate Dike Material on Site.

C. Pumping Distance To Site.

D. Pipeline Access.

E. Upland Vehicular Access.

F. Soil Characteristics.

G. Return Water Access.

II. Environmental Considerations

A. Avoidance of Wetlands.

B. Minimizing Unavoidable Wetland Impacts.

C. Pipeline Access.

D. Quality of On Site Wetlands.

E. Quality of On Site Uplands.

F. Provision of Buffer Zone.

G. Archeological Value of Site.

H. Ground water Conditions.

I. Return Water Access.

III. Socioeconomic Considerations

A. Existing Land Use.

B. Adjacent Land Use.

C. Current Zoning Schemes.

D. Comprehensive Plan

E. County vs. Municipal Boundaries.

F. Property Ownership.

G. Ownership Boundaries

The final Long Range Dredge Material Management Plan for that County is then completed.

Phase II - Implementation of the Long Range Dredged Material Management Plan.

The second phase of work in each County finalizes the site selection process by the performance of a detailed siteinvestigation of the primary candidate site within each dredging reach of the County. A detailed documentationpackage for each site is developed from these investigations to support the property acquisition process and theprocurement of the necessary permits for long term maintenance dredging activities. Each site documentationpackage consists of the following:

(l) Property Boundary Survey

(2) Environmental Habitat and Vegetation Survey Report


(3) Topographic Survey

(4) Soils Survey and Report

(5) Site Narrative

(6) Permit Drawings

(7) Site Management Plan

(8) Site Cost Report

Normally, the sequencing of work during the plan implementation phase of the program proceeds as follows:

(1) All information available in the public records pertaining to site ownership, assessed value, property boundaries,pending development and permit applications, zoning, land use restrictions, and other potential site encumbrancesis gathered and reviewed. Included in this work is a detailed search of the property deed information.

(2) Property owners are notified by FIND of the State’s interest in acquiring the site and are requested to sign awritten agreement authorizing FIND and Corps of Engineers personnel and agents to enter the property forevaluation and testing purposes.

(3) Property boundary, roadway, and pipeline easement surveys, are performed and monumented. A detailedenvironmental survey of the property is then completed to document site habitats, plant and animal species, andthe existence of threatened and/or endangered species.

(4) Using the access agreements and the boundary surveys, the Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers performsthe required topographic and soils surveys of the sites.

(5) Preliminary site plans and design documents for the dredged material management facilities are then prepared.These include dike plans and sections, ramps, excavation depths, dike material requirements, weir sizing andplacement, pipeline routing and easements, buffer and vegetation plans, and a hydraulic analysis of the expectedsettling efficiency of each containment basin. Results of this work are summarized in a 5 to 10 page site narrativefor each site and a set of completed site permit drawings which include:

• Site Location Map

• Site Plan

• Pipeline Easement Plan

• Typical Dike Section

• Typical Ramp Section

• Site Vegetation Plan

• Site Wetland Map

• Historical Sediment Time Settlement Curves and Core Boring Logs (if available)

(6) Following the completion of the site plans and containment facility designs, a Management Plan document isthen prepared for each site. This document addresses various aspects of the site design and long term operation ofthe facility. It is divided into three main sections. The first discusses pre-dredging and site design features, includingsite preparation, site design capacity, interior earthworks, existing easements, ramps, design ponding depths, dikeerosion and vegetation, inlet works, and weirs. The second section addresses site operational considerations duringdredging, including pipeline placement, inlet operation and monitoring, weir operation and effluent monitoring,


and groundwater monitoring. Finally, the report addresses post-dredging site management operations, such asdewatering, material grading and stormwater control, material handling and reuse, monitoring, mosquito control,and site security.

(7) Each site documentation package is completed with the preparation of a Site Cost Report which summarizesthe estimated costs to prepare the site and construct the facility, the costs incurred during dredging operations, and,the costs incurred, between successive dredging operations.

Property Acquisition

Table Two lists the status of the acquisition of dredge material management sites selected through this planning process up toAugust of 1993. Forty-six (46) sites totaling 2758 acres have been identified to provide management capabilities for 282miles of channel and approximately 41.5 million cubic yards of dredged material over a 50 year period. Of these sites, 29 arenow owned or controlled by the FIND, 5 sites are under purchase agreement, 4 sites are partially purchased and 8 sites areunder second phase investigation. To date approximately $18 million has been spent by FIND for site acquisition. It isestimated that it may require up to 65 sites for the permanent infrastructure of dredged material management sites along theentire 374 miles of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway channel.

Facility Permitting and Construction

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has the responsibility, as the Federal sponsor, to permit and construct these dredgematerial management facilities. This is accomplished using the documents prepared by FIND in the Phase II process. Once asite is permitted the State may issue maintenance dredging permits for that dredging reach of up to 25 years. To date foursites have been permitted and constructed, two sites are in the permitting process and several sites are in a phased develop-ment stage where the first development will only include fencing of the site and clearing of the future construction area.

Facility Operation

All sites designed through this program will be operated in perpetuity through a site specific management plan that isdeveloped in the Phase II process. This management and operation plan sets forth procedures to be followed during dredgingevents, post-dredging and pre-dredging as well as surface water management, material handling and reuse, monitoring andany joint use elements that may be in place.

An important secondary aspect of the long range dredge material management program, that has been developed by theFIND’s Board of Commissioners, is to provide beneficial uses of the dredged material and the dredged material managementsites. To date, plans have been put in place to renourish approximately 4.2 miles of beach with approximately 19 millioncubic yards of beach quality sand. In addition all upland containment sites will be operated to render the dredged materialusable for public or private projects at no cost. Finally, sites that are determined to have infrequent use or strong publicinterest will be have joint public use incorporated in the management plan. To date eleven sites have joint recreation orconservation use plans developed for them and three sites have lease for citrus production in the buffer areas. A site is alsobeing developed at Kennedy Space Center to provide material for the restoration of marshes impacted by barrow operationsin the past.

Summary

While the program is not complete, the regulatory agencies are very encouraged and supportive of the approach that hasbeen developed by FIND and the Army Corps of Engineers to provide a long term solution to the proper handling andmanagement of dredged material from the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway project for the protection of the environment.This cooperative solution to the problem ensures that the waterway will remain a viable navigation corridor along the EastCoast of Florida.

For further information, contact: David K. Roach, Florida Inland Navigation District, (561) 627-3386.


The Miami River: a Call to ActionMiami River Study Commission Report

Who did the plan?

The plan was written by the members of the Miami River Study Commission: Mayor of Miami-Dade County, Mayor of Cityof Miami, Miami-Dade County State Attorney, Secretary of Community Affairs, Chairperson of the Quality Action Team,Chairperson of the Miami River Coordinating Committee, Chairperson of the Miami River Marine Group, Chairperson ofthe Marine Council, Chairperson of the Downtown Development Authority, Chairperson of Homeowners Association,Chairperson of the Dade County Legislative Delegation and three community volunteers. This Study Commission wascreated by the State Legislature to “conduct a comprehensive study and review of the restoration of the Miami River andBiscayne Bay.”


January 28, 1998.

What is the status of the plan?This plan is the basis for all actions of the Miami River Commission. Working groups were defined based on the tasksoutlined in the plan.

What entities are involved in the plan?Entities that are involved in the plan are the same entities that created the plan plus- Greater Miami Chamber of Com-merce, South Florida Water Management District, Commissioner from the County and City, U.S. House and Senaterepresentatives, Coast Guard Captain of the Port. The required development of the Working Groups has opened the riverimprovement process to a variety of experts, agencies and individuals as the Commission operates under the “Sunshine” lawsof the State of Florida.

What is the geographic area of the plan?The geographic area is not clearly defined but in general includes the “Miami River Corridor.” The Miami River Commis-sion (MRC) has utilized 2500 feet from the river while designing the Miami River Greenway Action Plan. The stormwatersystem that drains to the river covers a 69 square mile area and significantly contributes to water quality issues. Our generalrule is—if it IMPACTS the river —we will get involved.


The plan outlines the history and development of the Commission, the importance of the Miami River, general problemstatement and conclusions. Next and most importantly the plan makes recommendations on specific areas such as (1)Management, (2) Dredging, (3) Water Quality, (4) Enforcement, (5) Derelict Vessels and (6) Land Use and Development.Under each of the above areas the problems are defined and solutions recommended. The plan breaks down the recom-mended solutions into tasks and identifies the lead agency/group to accomplish each specific task. In some cases it alsorecommends the anticipated funding requirements and source.



The management section directly relates to the BBPI. The management or oversight of the Miami River has been a long-standing problem and the River’s management problems are very similar to the problems confronting management ofBiscayne Bay. The Bay (just like the River) has numerous agencies that have various levels of jurisdiction, but no one agencyor group oversees all issues that affect the Bay. There is no clearinghouse agency that can advise or direct citizens to theproper agency for specific issues.

Who is in charge of the Bay?The law that established the MRC creates a Policy Committee consisting of key individuals and stakeholders, which iscritical to the success of the Commission. Working Groups focused on specific problem areas such as Dredging, Quality ofLife, Public Safety, etc. report to the Policy Committee for final decisions and actions. Most critical to the success is therequirement for fulltime staff to implement the decisions of the Policy Committee and coordinate the Working Groups.

Water quality issues contained in the MRC plan directly relate to the BBPI.

For further information, contact: David Miller, MRC, (305) 361-4850.

South Dade Agriculture Area StudyThe Agricultural Element of the South Biscayne Bay Watershed Management Plan

Who did the plan?The study is being compiled and completed by the Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), University of Floridathrough a contractual agreement with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS).

When was the plan completed?The study will be completed by March 2001, with the GIS/database portions being submitted to Miami-Dade County fortheir use by the fall of 2000.


The study has been initiated with a completion date of March 2001.


IFAS, FDACS, Miami-Dade County.

What is the geographic area of the plan?South Dade agricultural area.


What is the scope of the plan?It is the Intention of the FDACS in the performance of this study to retain agriculture and rural land uses through theenhancement of the economic viability of commercial agriculture in Miami-Dade County. The main purpose of this studyshall be the collection and analysis of data concerning the long-term economic outlook of the agriculture industry and thedevelopment of recommendations to enhance the industry’s economic viability. It is also the intention of FDACS and theCounty Commission that this study, and any potential resulting ordinances, shall not have an adverse effect on the value ofor use of property in the study area. The purpose of this study is to provide information and recommendations to FDACSand Miami-Dade County government and the citizens of Florida and particularly the citizens of Miami-Dade County toimprove current and future planning.

1.a Objective: Provide an overview of the natural and developed environment of the study area and describe theagricultural practices associated with each major crop or commodity group.

1.b Objective: The University of Florida’s August 1997 “Economic Impact of Agriculture and Agribusiness in DadeCounty, Florida”, submitted to the Miami-Dade County Farm Bureau in fulfillment of Sponsored Program Agree-ment 96093-C, shall be updated as appropriate and expanded to include organic agriculture and aquaculture.

1.c Objective: Provide an overview of the current economic environment, and the outlook on the future of thelocal agricultural industry.

1.d Objective: Identify and describe allied uses which are directly supportive of the local agricultural industry, alsothose allied uses supported by the local agricultural industry, either of which can or should operate in close proxim-ity to the production areas.

1.e Objective: The University of Florida will provide data from deliverables, as identified in Tasks 1.a. throughTasks 1.d., in a timely manner to assist the County’s consultant (Tischler & Associates) in their development ofthe “Public Sector Fiscal Impact Analysis.”

What are the key goals or objectives that directly relate to the Biscayne BayPartnership Initiative?Objective: Provide an overview of the natural and developed environment of the study area and describe the agriculturalpractices associated with each major crop or commodity group.

Principal Staffing: The University of Florida and its Tropical Research and Education Center (TREC).

Strategy: This task involves the description and mapping of elements that comprise the natural and developmental environ-ment of the study area. At a minimum, these features shall include soils, land and water elevations, drainage areas, resourcepolicies, land uses, and the use and availability of land for particular crops. The information for all of these elements isexpected to exist and will need to be researched, identified, collected and compiled into a format suitable for comparison,analysis and presentation. This task shall require the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology to efficientlyperform these operations.

Data sources for this task are anticipated to include but are not limited to the United States Geological Survey, Miami-Dade County, the South Florida Water Management District, and the University of Florida and the Florida CooperativeExtension Service. It is anticipated that a majority of this data will be available in a digital format that will only requireregistration and transformation to a common coordinated system.

The University of Florida shall be responsible for collecting and compiling all the land-use and physical GIS databasesdescribed in deliverables for Task 1a. into overlayable formats for ARC/INFO which shall be compiled into a map atlas.


The University of Florida shall identify and map in a GIS ARC/INFO database, specific tree crops, row crops, and containerand field nurseries to augment Miami-Dade County’s map of existing agricultural land use. Identification and GIS mappingof container & field nurseries and specific tree crops shall be a major objective of the University of Florida, TREC facultybecause of their relatively high value, sensitivity to environmental conditions, and sometimes intensive cultural practices.GIS mapping of these specific crops shall be expedited to the fullest extent possible, for time is of the essence, utilizing thelatest available aerial photography acquired by the University of Florida, the GIS agricultural land use maps from Miami-Dade County, and ground-truthing by University of Florida personnel. Provided sufficient cooperation can be obtained frommajor growers, the percentage of lime trees categorized as “budded” and the percentage categorized as “marcot” shall beestimated as part of this subtask. A minimum of six copies of the agricultural GIS database(s) collected and compiled by theUniversity of Florida shall be provided on computer diskettes or CD-ROMS in ARC/INFO format to FDACS.

Task l.a.(2) Database Creation

In addition to geographic mapping of specific row and tree crops, and container and field nurseries, the Universityof Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) researchers shall develop databases using voluntar-ily-obtained information pertinent to all major crops, i.e. those with total commercial production greater than 100acres or with significant agricultural value. Such data shall include current crop inputs (i.e. general irrigation,fertilization and pesticide requirements) and current crop outputs (i.e. crop yields) for major tree crops, vegetablecrops, field nurseries, etc. The University of Florida shall format the data according to an outline mutually agreedto by the County’s consultant and the University of Florida. This shall include general descriptions of usagepatterns of inputs such as irrigation, fertilizers, and pesticides. University of Florida researchers shall also developyield databases for these major crops where yields are a function of soil types and water table depths.

GIS maps and associated data of specific crops shall be used in the identification and analysis of geographic areaswhere agriculture exists. Maps of existing crops that indicate the biodiversity of agricultural production in SouthDade County shall be created.

For each major crop, pertinent and significant land-use practices shall be described. These land-use practices shallinclude generalized descriptions of major land characteristics i.e. salinity, water usage, location requirements,desirable water tables, flood tolerance, on-site operations including pest management and irrigation practices, andestimated operational costs of the crop.

Task l.a.(3) Study Model and Maps

Information from Task l.a. (l) and the maps and information developed in Task 1.a.(2), by the University of Florida,shall be analyzed and synthesized. The University of Florida shall synthesize all applicable information in order toidentify, for various types of agricultural production, the requirements for the successful cultivation of specificcrops. The University of Florida with review, input and comments from the County and Advisory Committee shallidentify criteria that will be used to determine the most suitable lands for the production of specific crops (i.e. soiltype, water table depth, etc.) The University of Florida shall review the data, and describe the methods used tocollect the data. The suitability criteria and all applicable information will be synthesized in order to delineate: 1)lands suitable for all types of agricultural production; 2) lands suitable for a smaller number of nonetheless impor-tant crops 3) areas where natural event flooding or current or proposed groundwater elevations would affectagricultural practices. In addition, a description shall be provided of ongoing major planning studies or projects,which may result in changes to the data and maps already obtained.

Once all of the data has been compiled, the GIS database shall be relied on for the preparation of maps at varyingscales and color formats. The database shall also support various analyses, including overlaying different dataelements, combining data elements and developing new data sets through the application of algorithms to theexisting information. All information, data and analysis shall be presented to the Advisory Committee. Everyeffort shall be made to reflect the most recent, current data available.


Deliverables:

Maps

1) The University of Florida shall prepare maps delineating the land most suitable for production of variouscrops considering physical/environmental limitations, and existing land use.

2) The University of Florida shall prepare indices of coverages, and databases with associated descriptive textidentifying each of the items listed below. The following information shall be digitally mapped to theextent that the information is digitally available and can be produced from existing Arc/Info compatibleGIS data bases and maps, including Florida Power & Light Co. data and maps, which are available andwhich may be reproduced by the County and/or it’s Consultants:

i) Locations of specific perennial tree crops (groves) in database and map formats based upon themost recent perennial tree crop maps and underlying GIS data as provided by the County.Specific tree crops will be identified through aerial photographs, grower interviews, and groundtruthing.

ii) All commercial crops with aggregate acreage greater than 100 acres or that provide significantagricultural value (including aquaculture).

iii) Detailed narrative descriptions and characteristics of each major crop and commodity group.

iv) The University of Florida shall prepare agricultural maps based on the suitability criteria. Inaddition, a description shall be provided of ongoing major planning studies or projects, which mayresult in changes to the data and maps already obtained.

Objective: The University of Florida’s August 1997 “Economic Impact of Agriculture and Agribusiness in DadeCounty, Florida”, submitted to the Miami-Dade County Farm Bureau in fulfillment of Sponsored Program Agree-ment 96093-C, shall be updated as appropriate and expanded to include organic agriculture and aquaculture.

Principal Staffing: University of Florida, Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, Food and Resource Econom-ics Department.

Task l.c.Economic Outlook

Objective: Provide an overview of the current economic environment, and the outlook on the future of the localagricultural industry.

Principal Staffing: The University of Florida.

Strategy: This task will occur in three major subtasks, as set forth below. The University of Florida shall provide: (1)an examination of qualitative information and quantitative data to estimate the impact of changes in the regula-tory environment and trade practices; and (2) a quantitative analysis (using appropriate analytical techniques) toestimate trends in production acreage, yields, crop values, and costs of production and to make appropriateprojections. The University of Florida, in consultation with the Advisory Committee, shall establish the appropri-ate sectors or commodity groups to be separately projected in this work activity. In addition, (3) the University ofFlorida shall organize a “ future technology and practices workshop bringing together key researchers and industryrepresentatives. The workshop shall be conducted as a research activity to stimulate a creative, yet realisticassessment of emerging technologies that are likely to impact the economic future of agriculture in Miami-DadeCounty.

For further information, contact: John C. Folks, FDACS, Office of Agricultural Water Policy, (850) 414-9928.


Oleta River State Recreation AreaUnit Management Plan

Who did the plan?

Florida Department of Environmental Protection.


The draft of the plan was completed September 23, 1996. The Land Management Advisory Council (LMAC) review Draftwas completed on January 31, 1997.

What is the status of the plan?The plan was adopted and has been partially implemented, within the constraints of staffing and funding.

What entities were involved in the plan?The following entities are listed in the plan as having “major or direct role in the management of the park”:

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission

Department of State, Division of Historical Resources

Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Marine Resources

The following entities were offered an opportunity to review and comment on the plan:

Miami-Dade County Commission


South Florida Regional Planning Council

What is the geographic area of the plan?The geographic area of the plan is for the property known as Oleta River State Recreation Area. This property is located inMiami-Dade County within the City of North Miami. It is approximately 11 miles northeast of central Miami. Access isfrom State Road 826. The property includes approximately 1,033 acres.

What is the scope of the plan?The plan serves as the basic statement of policy and direction for the management of Oleta River State Recreation Area as aunit of Florida’s state park system. It identifies the objectives, criteria and standards that guide each aspect of park adminis-tration, and sets forth specific measures that will be implemented to meet management objectives.

The plan consists of two interrelated components. Each component corresponds to a particular aspect of the park’sadministration. The resource management component provides a detailed inventory and assessment of the park’s natural andcultural resources. Resource management problems and needs are identified, and specific management objectives are


established for each resource type. This component provides guidance on the application of such measures as prescribedburning, exotic species removal, and restoration of natural conditions.

The land use component is the recreational allocation plan for the unit. Based in considerations such as access, popula-tion and adjacent land uses, and optimum allocation of the park’s physical space is made, locating use areas and proposingtypes of facilities and volume of use to be provided.

What are the key goals that directly relate to the Biscayne BayPartnership Initiative?

• Restore and enhance fringe mangrove communities by improving tidal connections and reconstructing the shore-line adjacent to existing fringe mangroves

• Re-vegetate ruderal uplands with native species to create functional maritime hammock

• Pursue and support enforcement measures through the Florida Park Patrol, Florida Marine Patrol, and local lawenforcement, which help maintain slow and idle speed zones in the river and bay to protect manatees and preventshoreline erosion.

• Restrict use of motorized vehicles in the lagoon and river for the protection of manatees and the public recreatingin the park waters.

• Encourage the county to replace existing sewer line adjacent to the park to minimize sewage contamination in parkwaters.

• Continue to advise EPA regarding cleanup of the Munisport landfill to minimize impacts to the park’s water quality,wetlands, submerged communities.

• Pursue an increase in water quality testing by DERM at the mangrove preserve and in nearby bay water waters toassess the impacts of the Munisport landfill.

• Coordinate with SFWMD and DERM regarding management of the Snake Creek Canal, which is upstream ofOleta River.

• Develop new interpretive programs and enhance existing programs, seek funding for fishing platforms, seek fundingfor canoe launch and docks.

For further information, contact George Jones, FDEP, (561) 546-0900.

Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Recreation AreaUnit Management Plan

Who did the plan?Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks. Staff from the Park, from the Recre-ation and Parks District 5 Office and from the Office of Park Planning participated.

When was the plan completed?The park’s unit management plan is updated every five years. The latest update is currently being drafted. The last fully


revised plan was approved on October 10, 1991; Addendum 9 was approved on July 21, 1993 and subsequently re-approvedadministratively.


Approved by the Governor and Cabinet in the summer of 2000 and implemented thereafter.


Primarily the Division of Recreation and Parks; Park staff, District staff and administration and the Office of Park Planning,with public input.

What is the geographic area of the plan?The plan applies to the park’s lands at the southern end of Key Biscayne, as well as to a management zone that extendsoutward 400 feet from the Park’s Biscayne Bay border and Atlantic Ocean shoreline and approximately halfway across PinesCanal to the North.

What is the scope of the plan?The plan is the basic statement of policy direction for the management of the park as a unit of Florida’s state park system. Itidentifies the objectives, criteria and standards that guide each aspect of the park administration, and sets forth the specificmeasures that will be implemented to meet management objectives. The plan is intended to meet the requirements ofSections 253.034 and 259.032, F.S., chapter 18-2, F.A.C., and intended to be consistent with the State Lands ManagementPlan. All development and resource alteration encompassed in this plan is subject to the granting of appropriate permits,easements, licenses, and other required legal instruments. Approval of the management plan does not constitute anycompliance with the appropriate local, state, or federal agencies. This plan is also intended to meet the requirements forbeach and shore preservation, as defined in Ch. 161, F.S., and Chapters 62B-33, 62B-36 and 62R-49, F.A.C.

The plan consists of two interrelated components. The resource management component provides an inventory andassessment of the natural and cultural resources of the park, identifies management problems and needs, and establishesspecific management objectives for each resource. The land use component is the recreational resource allocation plan forthe park. It locates use areas and proposes types of facilities and volume of use to be provided.

What are the key goals of objectives that directly relate to the Biscayne Bay Partner-ship Initiative?The plan includes the goal of preserving, restoring and protecting the park’s native flora and fauna from human-relatedimpacts. Objectives are the continuation of the restoration of the park’s plant communities; the continuation of the moni-toring and protection of sea turtle nests; better protection of marine life through increased enforcement of existing regula-tions and increased informational and regulatory signage; better protection of the park’s seagrass beds and other marinesubstrate communities through the placement of boundary buoys and restrictions on anchoring and swimming along thewestern seawall; and the monitoring of water quality in the park’s harbor, Pines Canal and the newly restored tidal wetlands.As such proper instrumental of activities and resources along Biscayne Bay, including No Name Harbor, are instrumental inenhancing the viability of this water of critical concern.



John Pennekamp State Park - Key LargoUnit Management Plan

Who did the plan?

District 5 Biologists; Park Management; Planners and Biologists with the Office of Park Planning.


March 20, 1998.

What is the status of the plan?Adopted and implementation begun.

What entities were involved in the plan?Division of Recreation and Parks; Division of State Lands; the public during open public meetings.

What is the geographic area of the plan?Upper Keys (Key Largo)


Management Program OverviewManagement Authority and Responsibility

Park Goals and Objectives

Management Coordination

Resource Management Component

Resource Description and Assessment

Natural Resources

Cultural Resources

Resource Management Program

Management Needs and Problems

Management Objectives

Management Measures for Natural Resources

Management Measures for Cultural Resources

Research Needs

Resource management Schedule


Land Use Component

External Conditions

Existing Use of Adjacent Lands

Planned Use of Adjacent Lands

Property Analysis

Recreation Resource Elements

Assessment of Use

Conceptual Land Use Plan

Potential Uses and Proposed Facilities

Existing Use and Optimum Carrying Capacity

Optimum Boundary

Table - Existing Use and Optimum Carrying Capacity

Addendums: Trust Fund Lease Agreement - References Cites - Soil Descriptions - Natural Community Descriptions - Plantand Animal – Designated Species - Maps - Location - Vicinity - Soils - Natural Communities - Cultural Resources - Exotics– Base – Conceptual Land Use Plan Optimum Boundary


• Protect and preserve park waters with emphasis on the reefs and shallow flats

• Acquisition of additional undeveloped uplands bordering park waters

• Monitor visitor use impacts

• Water quality monitoring

• Evaluate permit applications that may affect park waters

• Protect marine tidal swamps

• Protect water resources form dredge and fill impacts

• Educate residents, visitors and recreational boat operators, dive boats operators and fisherman.



Barnacle State Historic SiteUnit Management Plan

Who did the plan?

Department of Environmental Protection; Division of State Lands.


February 6, 1998.

What is the status of the plan?On-going implementation.

What entities were involved in the plan?Division of Recreation & Parks; Division of State Lands; Division of Historical Resources.

What is the geographic area of the plan?5 Upland acres & 5 submerged acres.


This plan serves as the basic statement of policy and direction for the management of The Barnacle State Historic Site as aunit of Florida’s state park system. It identifies the objectives, criteria and standards that guide each aspect of park adminis-tration, and sets forth the specific measures that will be implemented to meet management objectives. The plan is intendedto meet the requirements of Section 253.034, F.S., Chapter 18-2, F.A.C., and is intended to be consistent with the StateLands Management Plan. All development and resource alterations encompassed in this plan are subject to the granting ofappropriate permits, easements, licenses, and other required legal instruments. Approval of the management plan does notconstitute an exemption from complying with the appropriate local, state, or federal agencies. This plan is also intended tomeet the requirements for beach and shore preservation, as defined in Chapter 161, F.S., and Chapter 62B-33, F.A.C.

The plan consists of two interrelated components. Each component corresponds to a particular aspect of the park’sadministration. The resource management component provides a detailed inventory and assessment of the park’s natural andcultural resources. Resource management problems and needs are identified, and specific management objectives areestablished for each resource type. This component provides guidance on the application of such measures as prescribedburning, exotic species removal, and restoration of natural conditions.

The land use component is the recreational resource allocation plan for the unit. Based on considerations such asaccess, population and adjacent land uses, an optimum allocation of the park’s physical space is made, locating use areas andproposing types of facilities and volume of use to be provided.

During the planning process, all potential outdoor recreation uses are considered. Those found appropriate are discussedwithin this plan. Uses of property for mining, silviculture, range management, or other consumptive purposes, where notprohibited by legal restrictions, are considered inappropriate. Exceptions are evaluated on a case-by-case basis for compat-ibility with the unit’s outdoor recreation and resource preservation purposes.


In the development of this plan, the multiple-use management potential of the property was analyzed. It was deter-mined that the current single-use management designation is the most appropriate for this property as a unit of the statepark system. However, compatible secondary uses of the property may be approved if they do not conflict with the outdoorrecreation and conservation purposes, which the property is intended to serve.

The potential for generating revenue to enhance management was also analyzed. It was determined that multiple-usemanagement activities would not be appropriate as a mean of generating revenues for land management. Instead, techniquessuch as entrance fees, concessions and similar measures will be employed on a case-by-case basis as a means of supplementingpark management funding.

The use of private land managers to facilitate restoration and management of this unit was also analyzed. Decisionsregarding this type of management (such as mitigation projects, removal of timber for resource protection or restoration,etc.) will be made on a case-by-case basis as necessity dictates.

What are the key goals or objectives that directly relate to the Biscayne BayPartnership Initiative?Preservation of remaining natural coastal hammock community.


SOUTH DADE WATERSHED PLANWho did the plan?In 1998, the Florida Legislature appropriated $500,000 to initiate development of the South Dade Watershed Plan. Thesefunds were directed to Miami-Dade County through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). OnDecember 7, 1999, the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved a resolution authorizing theCounty Manager to execute an Agreement with FDEP to utilize these funds. The 1999 Legislature appropriated an addi-tional $1,000,000 for this initiative, stipulating that $500,000 was to be earmarked for the agricultural component of theWatershed Plan. The County’s approved 2000 State Legislative Package also contains a $1,000,000 appropriations requestfor the Watershed Plan. In March of 2000 this project was approved by the Water Advisory Panel established by Governor’sExecutive Order 99-288, and included in a list of projects submitted to the Senate for funding consideration.

One of the first tasks identified in the FDEP Funding Agreement is establishment of an Advisory Committee chargedwith reviewing and making recommendations regarding the draft Scope of Work prepared by the Biscayne National Park(BNP) Buffer “Land Bank Trust” Working Group (Working Group) for the Watershed Plan. This Advisory Committee wasestablished via Ordinance 00-37, adopted by the BCC on March 21, 2000.

The language developed by the Working Group was ultimately incorporated into the CDMP as Land Use ElementPolicy 3E, adopted by the BCC in October of 1996. The Working Group then spearheaded development of a draft Scope ofStudy for the Watershed Plan, which was completed in December of 1997. The originally adopted target date for completionof the Watershed Plan was January 1, 2000. Policy 3E stipulates that this date may be extended by amendment to theCDMP. The Department of Planning and Zoning filed an application to amend Policy 3E by extending the deadline toJanuary 1, 2002, as part of the April 1999 CDMP Amendment Application Cycle. The BCC approved transmittal of theproposed amendment to the Department of Community Affairs and other state agencies for review and comment onNovember 4, 1999. An ordinance providing for final disposition of the April 1999 amendment applications, includingapproval of the deadline extension for Policy 3E, was adopted by the BCC on March 28, 2000.


When was the plan completed?The impetus for the Plan was an application filed by Biscayne National Park in 1995 to amend Miami-Dade County’sComprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP). The Florida Department of Environmental Protection Agreement (seeabove) provides that Miami-Dade County, the South Florida Water Management District, and the South Florida RegionalPlanning Council (RPC) jointly develop and implement the Watershed Plan through a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU). A resolution authorizing the County Manager to execute an MOU between these agencies that outlines the timingof planning activities and respective responsibilities of the parties was approved by the RPC in May 2000 and by (BCC) inJuly 2000.


The plan will have two time horizons: a short-term component extending through the year 2015 and a long-term compo-nent extending through the year 2050.


The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Miami-Dade County, the South Florida Water Management District,and the South Florida Regional Planning Council, among others.

What is the geographic area of the plan?The South Dade Watershed is located in the southeastern portion of Miami-Dade County, between Everglades and BiscayneNational Parks (BNP). The eastern boundary of the watershed begins at the eastern edge of the C-3 Canal Basin where itintersects Tamiami Trail, and proceeds southward along the shoreline of Biscayne Bay to the point at which the shorelineintersects with U.S. 1. The northern boundary is formed by the Tamiami Trail, excluding that portion of the C-4 Basinextending south of the Trail and including those portions of the C-1 and C-3 Basins extending north of the Trail. Thewestern boundary begins at the western edge of the C-1 Basin where it intersects the Trail, and proceeds southward from theC-1 Basin in an irregular fashion along the Krome Avenue (SW 177th Avenue) corridor to the intersection of U.S. 1, andthen follows U.S. 1 to land’s end. The watershed is divided into a primary area, south of and including the C-2 Basin, and asecondary area consisting of the C-3 Basin.

What is the scope of the plan?The South Dade Watershed Plan is designed to integrate land use and water management decisions. As originally proposed,a moratorium would have been placed on development in the southeast portion of the County. Local landowners andeconomic development interests objected strenuously to the proposed amendments, while environmental interests arguedthat they were needed in order to protect BNP. In an effort to reach community consensus, the Miami-Dade County Boardof County Commissioners created the BNP Buffer “Land Bank Trust” Working Group. The Group was charged with balanc-ing the environmental health of BNP with property rights of area landowners. The Working Group crafted consensuslanguage addressing the issues of concern, which called for development of an integrated land use and water managementplan for south Miami-Dade County (the Watershed Plan).

What are the key goals or objectives that directly relate to the Biscayne BayPartnership Initiaitve?

Policy 3E stipulates that the Watershed Plan be based on a comprehensive study that analyzes and projects surface andground water uses and corresponding land uses. Required components of the study include an analysis of all relevant studies


pertaining to the watershed area, existing and needed numeric standards for the quality, quantity, timing and distribution ofwaters into and of Biscayne National Park, existing and needed water supply studies, best management practices for sourcesof stormwater runoff, and methods for integrating the Plan into the Restudy. The nexus between the Watershed Plan andthe Restudy will most likely occur though the Restudy’s Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands component, which is designed torehydrate coastal wetlands, reduce point source discharges and develop management criteria for freshwater flows to southernand central Biscayne Bay.

Policy 3E states that the Watershed Plan must fulfill the following specific objectives:

• Identify and protect lands, including their uses and functions, that are essential for preserving the environmental,economic, and community values of BNP.

• Identify and establish mechanisms for protecting constitutional private property rights of owners of land identifiedabove.

• Support a viable, balanced economy including agriculture, recreation, tourism, and urban development in the Planarea.

• Assure compatible land uses and zoning decisions in the Study Area consistent with long-term objectives for asustainable South Miami-Dade.

It is anticipated that the total cost of the watershed planning project will be on the order of $3.5 million. The AdvisoryCommittee includes representatives from agriculture, tourism, business, development, environmental interests, and civicorganizations active in South Miami-Dade County, as well as local, state and federal government agencies. Because theWatershed Plan must address land use and water issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries, extensive interagency coopera-tion will be required. Accordingly, the FDEP Agreement provides that Miami-Dade County, the South Florida WaterManagement District, and the South Florida Regional Planning Council jointly develop and implement the Watershed Planthrough a Memorandum of Understanding.

For further information, contact: Cindy Dwyer, Miami-Dade County P & Z, (305) 375-2835.

The South Dade Watershed ProjectWho did the plan?South Florida Water Management District.

When was the plan completed?July 1995.

What is the status of the plan?“Put on the shelf,” but the plan won an American Institute of Architects national honor award in 1999 for urban andregional planning.


Wide local participation in a steering committee. Work accomplished primarily by University of Miami Center for Urbanand Community Design, University of Florida Center for Wetlands and South Florida Water Management District.


What is the geographic area of the plan?Cross section of southern Miami-Dade County.


Land use, hydrology, drainage, water quality, climate and interconnectedness.

What are the key goals or objectives that directly relate to the Biscayne BayPartnership Initiative?The purpose of the plan was to create a vision and conceptual land use plan that would mitigate water quality and hydro-logic impacts to Biscayne Bay while increasing the quality of life for residents.

For further information, contact: Rick Alleman, SFWMD, (561) 682-6716.

South Florida Multi-Species Recovery PlanWho did the Plan?United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region

When was the plan completed?May 1999


The plan provides a framework for the conservation of selected wildlife species in southern Florida, and serves as a guide inproject planning, research, etc. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service will develop an implementation plan as part ofthe overall South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative.


The plan was organized and written primarily by the staff of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, with extensiveinput and contributions from individuals representing themselves, universities, other local, state, and federal agencies, andprivate conservation organizations.

What is the geographic area of the plan?South Florida

What is the scope of the plan?The plan includes two major sections: The Ecological Communities; and The Species. Eighteen communities are summarizedalong with federally listed species of birds, reptiles, mammals, invertebrates, and plants. Each community account includesinformation on synonymy, distribution, a description of the ecosystem and distinct community types, wildlife, ecology, statusand trend, and management.


Ecological communities related to Biscayne Bay include:

Beach Dune/Coastal Strand/Maritime Hammock

Tropical Hardwood Hammock

Mangroves

Coastal Salt Marsh

Seagrasses

Nearshore and Midshelf Reefs

Species accounts include descriptions, distribution, habitat requirements, behavior, relationship to other species, statusand trend, and management.

Examples of species relevant to Biscayne Bay include (but are not limited to):

American crocodile

loggerhead sea turtle

West Indian manatee

wood stork

Schaus swallowtail butterfly


The primary objective of the document is to provide a baseline reference of information regarding selected listed species insouthern Florida and their relationship to each other and the region’s ecosystems. The sections on ecological communitiesprovide useful background and some management recommendations that related to the BBPI. This is likewise the case forthe species accounts, although additional species may be of concern for the BBPI that are not addressed in the plan.

For further information, contact: Mark Robson, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, (561) 625-5131.


R E G U L A T ion S U R V E Y T E A MFINAL REPORT


Regulation survey team report295

Contents

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 296OVERVIEWORGANIZATION AND STRUCTUREBACKGROUNDOBJECTIVES OF THE REGULATION SURVEY TEAMISSUES IDENTIFIED

SURVEY SECTION .................................................................................................................. 300IntroductionActivities, Conditions and Source MaterialASSESSMENT AND FINDINGS

RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................. 304INCREASED FUNDING FOR BISCAYNE BAY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATIONLAND ACQUISITIONCOUNTY ORDINANCESNEED FOR INCREASED ENFORCEMENTNEED FOR IMPROVED DATAINTERAGENCY ACTIVITIESMARINE REGULATORY SIGNAGE

DEFICIENCIES OF THE PROCESS ..............................................................................................307

APPENDIces ........................................................................................................................ 308


INTRODUCTIONOVERVIEWBiscayne Bay is perhaps our most important resource, and as such has over the years been the focus of any number of laws,acts, and regulations. These many regulations are administered by over three dozen governmental agencies, and well over adozen municipalities have Bay-related ordinances.

One component of the Biscayne Bay Partnership Initiative is the regulatory environment of the Bay: which of theseregulations have a critical impact, how effective they are in preserving the Bay for future generations, and what recommen-dations could provide better protection of Biscayne Bay in the new millennium.

ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTUREThe Regulation Survey Team was originally organized with the following Categories of Affiliation:

1.Federal2.State3.County/City4.University5.Non-Governmental Organizations6.Private Sector

After identifying and categorizing the bay issues to be addressed by the team, members divided up into smaller “Issue“subcommittees. The three issue teams were: Education, Enforcement and Regulation.

A list of active team members, their affiliation and issue subcommittee assignment is in Appendix D to this report.

BACKGROUNDHistory of Regulation in the BayBiscayne Bay is a shallow 428 square mile subtropical lagoon which is approximately 40 miles long and extends the length ofMiami-Dade County, Florida. Early activities such as dredge and fill operations, mangrove destruction, disposal of raw orpoorly treated sewage, storm water outfalls, flood control projects, and shoreline development have substantially altered thecharacter and quality of Biscayne Bay. Through a number of Management Plans, Biscayne Bay is in better condition todaythan it was 30 years ago. Some of the enacted plans and regulations that are enforced by Miami-Dade County, the State ofFlorida, and various federal agencies are:

Plan EnactedBiscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve 1974Biscayne Bay “Aquatic Park and Conservation Area“ 1976Bay Management Committee 1981Biscayne Bay Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan 1995Federal Clean Water Act 1972County Code, Ordinance 20-58, amended 1980Dade Biscayne Bay Management Plan 1981


The Regulatory EnvironmentWork and activities in Biscayne Bay are regulated by any number of acts, plans and regulations. Those that the team used indeveloping this report include:

a. Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Planb. Biscayne Bay Management Planc. Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act and Rulesd. Shoreline Review Development Ordinancee. Manatee Protection Planf. Miami-Dade Comprehensive Plang. Florida Forever Acth. Chapter 24-Code of Metro-Dade Countyi. Existing Submerged Lands and Environmental Resource Permitting Program (SLERP)j. Federal Endangered Species Actk. Federal Clean Water Actl. Federal Coastal Zone Management Actm. Marine Mammals Protection Actn. Federal Rivers and Harbors Acto. Various municipal regulations

JurisdictionsAlong with the plethora of regulations indicated above, Biscayne Bay also has many agencies and municipalities that havesome degree of jurisdiction over it. In fact, there are at least 30 agencies (federal, state, local) and 17 municipalities thathave some jurisdiction over the bay. A listing of these is contained in Appendix A.

Current Status of Biscayne Baya. Introduction

In the opinion of most people, Biscayne Bay today is in better “ecological shape“ than it was 30 years ago. Manygood things have happened in that time to create the improved Biscayne Bay we know today. However, manychallenges still remain. Many of these assets and challenges are listed below.

b. Assets of, or related to, Biscayne Bay1. The overall condition of the bay is better than it was 30 years ago.2. In general, there are adequate regulations and agency structures in place to manage activities within the

Bay.3. The establishment of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act and Rules.4. The establishment of the Water Pollution Control Act and other federal laws governing water pollution.5. Prohibitions in the county code for non-water dependent activities on or adjacent to Biscayne Bay.6. No variance allowed to specific policies of the Comprehensive Development Management Plan.7. More accuracy in the federal decision-making process resulting in additional safeguards being integrated

into the regulatory review process.8. At the state level, regulatory time frames are specifically identified.9. There are ongoing efforts to streamline state, local, and federal programs for projects on the bay.10. Cooperative efforts of state and county agencies have greatly assisted the U. S. Coast Guard in identifying

polluters.11. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has been responsive and effective.12. The introduction of a “Task Force“ approach (i.e., an organized coordination effort among law enforce-

ment agencies) that helps maximize the enforcement effort.13. Some required boater education has been established.


c. Challenges1. Current regulations are inadequate to protect against impacts to Biscayne Bay from development on lands

within the watershed. This is of particular concern for the large undeveloped areas in southern Miami-Dade County.

2. Maintain and improve bay access including preservation and management of remaining open spacesadjacent to Biscayne Bay such as Bicentennial Park.

3. Staffing within regulatory and enforcement agencies at county, state, and federal levels continues to beinsufficient.

4. Budget constraints bring reduced compliance/enforcement resources to all agencies.5. There is no 24 hour law enforcement patrol for Biscayne Bay.6. The effects of population increases and resulting increase in use of the bay is exacerbated by the decrease

in enforcement and regulatory assets.7. Although improved, there needs to be better coordination among governments.8. There are overlapping agency and local governmental jurisdictions.9. Water quality levels are, at times, below acceptable standards.10. There is a need for additional water quality test sites that properly document test results.11. There is a lack of consistency in federal, state and county water quality standards.12. There is insufficient maintenance and replacement of signage.13. There is an increased number of registered vessels in Miami-Dade County with access to Biscayne Bay.14. There is an identified need for both additional funding and a more expedient process for the removal of

derelict vessels.15. There are potential impacts from unregulated boat anchorages such as Dinner Key.16. There has been no definitive study of the impacts by recreational, commercial, and other users on Biscayne

Bay.17. Up to 1000 vehicles per year are being dumped in Miami-Dade County canals which are part of the

Biscayne Bay watershed and thus affect overall water quality.18. There is no comprehensive list of bay resources for potential user groups.19. Boater education needs to be expanded.20. There is little coordinated effort toward public education of Biscayne Bay and its resources.

OBJECTIVES OF THE REGULATION SURVEY TEAMOverall Team Objectives

a. Identify agencies with jurisdiction over Biscayne Bay.b. Identify problem areas, determine how effectively current or conventional regulations address these areas, and

whether innovative regulatory solutions from other locations would be appropriate.c. Assess whether the current regulatory regime is

1. current;2. comprehensive;3. balanced;4. compatible between and among jurisdictional entities;5. compatible with current management principles/models;6. effective;7. capable of enforcement; and8. has adequate resources to ensure satisfactory results.

d. Develop recommendations with regard to the above objectives.


Issue Subcommittee Objectivesa. Enforcement

The objective of the Enforcement Issue Subcommittee is to identify issues regarding enforcement of current marineregulations as they relate to Biscayne Bay and to recommend possible solutions to remedy identified problems.

b. EducationThe objective of the Educational Issue Subcommittee is to identify the educational resources currently availablefrom all entities involved in regulatory activities relating to the bay, and to make these resources readily availableand easily accessible to all interested parties through a centralized information repository.

c. RegulationThe objective of the Regulation Issue Subcommittee is to identify issues involving the existing regulatory structureand to recommend possible solutions.

ISSUES IDENTIFIEDEnforcement

a. Increase the number of enforcement personnelb. Address the need for more effective inter-agency coordination.c. Address the need for maintenance of existing marine regulatory signage, as well as a provision for additional

signage.d. Increase the collection of data pertaining to user populations.

Educationa. Determining the target audiences and how they can best be identified.b. Insufficient interaction in the regulatory process between educators and regulatory proponents.c. Inadequate system of feedback from affected user groups to the regulators and legislators to improve the decision

making process.d. Lack of a centralized clearinghouse to collect available information and disseminate it efficiently to interested

parties.e. Identification of formal education programs that currently exist, and determination whether these programs are

sufficient to represent all of the identified concerns.f. Develop new initiatives.

Regulationa. Areas of extraordinary significance such as, but not limited to, Biscayne National Park, Virginia Key Critical

Wildlife Area and Oleta River State Mangrove Preserve have to be afforded a higher level of protection.b. The need to determine if all individual governmental entities (county, municipalities, etc.) are aware of and comply

with the existing regulations for bay shoreline development. If not, make them aware or encourage compliance.c. Shorten the time frame for responding to the application for, and issuance of, permits.d. Local and federal regulations have no mandated time frames.e. State and local agencies need regulatory tools to enforce preservation of natural features violations.f. Develop better inter-agency coordination between federal, state and local regulatory agencies to implement

permitting decisions and mitigation recommendations, as well as take enforcement actions.g. Though improved, water quality levels in Biscayne Bay need to be monitored and maintained.


SURVEY SECTIONIntroductionOnce the subcommittees had identified the key issues in their area of study, they developed possible ways to deal with thevarious issues. In order to do so, they had to first examine existing conditions and activities, then access data available, andfinally develop the subcommittees recommendations.

Activities, Conditions and Source MaterialEnforcement

a. Conditions and Activities1. Miami-Dade County is ranked number one in fatal boating accidents in the State of Florida (per the

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 1999 Florida Boating Accident Statistical Report).2. Enforcement and support of the Miami-Dade County Manatee Protection Plan3. Violation of manatee speed zones by boaters.4. Mooring scars caused by anchorages. A good example is at Dinner Key.5. Recurring problems with solid waste/littering in the bay.6. Recurring problems with derelict vessels.7. Lack of 24 hour law enforcement patrols.8. The current positive working relationship between marine regulatory agencies in Miami-Dade County is

considered an important asset.9. Current public outreach by Miami-Dade Police Marine Patrol and Marine Advisory Support Team

(MAST).10. Overlapping jurisdictions of existing agencies.11. Propeller damage to bay bottom caused by: boaters not following channel markers, not being able to find a

channel marker, uneducated boaters, or inadequately marked channels.12. Lack of maintenance of existing marine regulatory signage.

b. Source Material1. Personal/group knowledge2. Responses from Government Survey (See Appendix B)3. Responses from other Survey Teams regarding issues of Biscayne Bay.

Educationa. Activities and Conditions

1. Most of the entities represented within the Biscayne Bay Partnership Iniatiative (Initiative) have educa-tional programs and resources, but there is little or no coordination, information retrieval, or dissemina-tion.

2. Educational efforts are currently underway on the local, regional, national, and international level.3. Educational efforts seem to be focused on traditional user groups but need to diversify to reflect the

complexion of the current community.4. Print medium seems to be the most prevalent form of educational outreach. Efforts should be made to

incorporate new technology (video/internet access) in order to reach greater audience.5. Bay issues affect the entire watershed area, but educational efforts seemed to be focused primarily on active

user groups.


6. Publicity/public education campaigns have been successfully used nationwide to heighten public interestand support for marine environmental protection and responsible use of resources ( e.g., Save the Chesa-peake Bay).

7. Greater emphasis needs to be focused on school children in grades K through 12 to impart a bay protectionand environmental educational ethic early on.

b. Source Material1. Information supplied by other survey team members about educational programs.2. Personal knowledge of education subcommittee members.

Regulationa. Activities and Conditions

Using the groups understanding of past project reviews and existing regulations.b. Source Materials

Acts, plans, and regulations previously identified in this report, and group members knowledge of these and otherexisting rules, ordinances, and laws.

ASSESSMENT AND FINDINGSEnforcement

a. Need for increased enforcement:Existing local, state and federal laws and regulations were found to be adequate. However, existing resources

(personnel, boats, equipment, etc.) necessary to enforce these laws and regulations are not sufficient to meet theenforcement demands presented by Biscayne Bay. In addition, there is a need for an increase in staffing of enforce-ment officers. Major marine enforcement agencies (including local, state and federal), have existing personnelvacancies that should be filled. Specific examples of three local enforcement agencies personnel needs are detailedin Appendix B to this report.

Another shortcoming in existing enforcement presence on the bay is the lack of a 24 hour, 7 days per week,marine patrol because of a shortage of marine officers. There is no enforcement of the Shoreline DevelopmentReview Committees recommendations regarding development fronting Biscayne Bay. Finally, there is no law,similar to that used in Biscayne National Park, to address vessel grounding damage to bay bottom resources (seagrasses, hard bottom communities, etc.).

b. Need for Increased Inter-agency Coordination:Various local, state and federal agencies have jurisdiction over Biscayne Bay and, in some instances, these

jurisdictions overlap. The agencies are aware of their jurisdictions and their responsibilities, but, there is a lack ofinformation on the part of the public about which agency responds to various situations. The present workingrelationship among the marine regulatory agencies (local, state and federal) is considered to be one of the best inthe state; nevertheless, communication between the agencies could be improved.

The response to the government survey was limited. Of the 17 municipalities surveyed, only six responses werereceived. Based on those responses and group knowledge, there is definitely a need for 24 hour, 7 days per weekmarine coverage. The majority of the responding agencies would be interested in participating in a Biscayne Bay-wide task force approach and/or interagency agreements for mutual aid to provide a marine law enforcementresponse that would both identify issues and share intelligence about crime trends and boating violations.

Examples of current interagency cooperative efforts that were found to be effective are the Miami RiverEnforcement Group, the Quality Action Team, the Marine Advisory Support Team, “Operation Sea Cow“(manatee enforcement) and the Columbus Day Regatta Task Force. These efforts all provide examples of marineregulatory agencies working together and deploying scarce resources to best address concerns prioritized by thepublic.


c. Need for maintenance of and additional marine regulatory signageCurrent marine signage on the bay was found to be inadequate and not well maintained. There are many

markers and signs in disrepair and therefore not informing the public about current laws and regulations. This, inturn, prevents proper enforcement due to legality issues (for example, a boat speeding in a manatee zone wherezone designation sign is missing). In addition, there is a need for more signage to address issues such as illegalmooring and better mark existing channels and speed zones.

One of the problems is that there is no single agency responsible for the maintenance and posting of marineregulatory signage. In 1998, there was a complete inventory of marine regulatory signage for Biscayne Bay whichwas deposited with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), the agency currently coordi-nating the installation of the manatee zone signs.

One of the main findings of this inventory was that the manatee zone signs were conflicting, missing, or inpoor repair. Contracts for new signage is delegated to the Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) in coordina-tion with FWC. There is neither a current mandate to conduct an inventory of marine signage during a set timeframe nor a centralized repository for marine signage information. Last, but not least, there is no dedicated fundingsource for the maintenance and posting of marine signage.

d. Lack of data pertaining to user populations:There is no data source that quantifies impacts to Biscayne Bay caused by the current user population. This

population includes recreational and commercial users, tourists, etc.This impact on Biscayne Bay requires a marine regulatory infrastructure that provides a wide range of services

including protection of parks, law enforcement, fire and emergency services, derelict vessel and trash removal, andother services. Without this information, there is no data source for agencies responsible for providing theseservices to help justify a funding request for support resources such as personnel, equipment, etc.

Examples of missing data:• How many boaters use the bay on a given weekend?• How many public, private, and commercial boat launch ramps with access to the bay currently exist?• How many marina boat slips and moorings are available?• How many live-aboards are currently in Miami-Dade County?

Educationa. Determine the target audiences that need to be reached, and how they can best be identified.

While most would agree the scope of the audience encompasses those who live in the entire surroundingwatershed, paring this group down to a manageable, effective level is quite another feat. Most existing educationalprograms focus primarily on the users groups that directly interface with the bays resources and environment.Rarely taken into account are the groups or influences whose connection to the bay resource is indirect, but whosecumulative impact could be as great as that of active user groups.

b. Insufficient interaction in the regulatory process between educators and regulatory proponents.There seems to be a major gap in communication between educators and regulators. This gap occurs at every

step of the regulatory process, but is perhaps most pronounced in the regulatory development stage. Input fromeducators could alleviate shortfalls in regulatory enactment prior to the finalization of any new proposal. Mostagencies have educational initiatives that are collateral functions of a greater area of program responsibility, andthat do not afford sufficient time to actively interface with all phases of the regulatory function.

c. Inadequate system of feedback from affected user groups back to the regulators and legislators that would enhancethe decision making process

The educational process could not only be enhanced to provide information and guidance to affected usersgroups, but modified to gather feedback and forward findings to legislators and regulators about current and futureproposals. It is often expressed by user groups that regulators and legislators operate in a vacuum, and that regula-tions fail to reflect current user group assessments or input.


d. Lack of a centralized clearinghouse to collect available information and disseminate it efficiently to interestedparties.

While it is quite obvious that there is an abundance of educational material currently available on bay regula-tory matters and current affairs, there is no central repository or database to access to enhance the level of under-standing. Even regulators have often commented on this recognized deficiency and noted reliance on their owninformal networking system with colleagues to stay abreast of changing requirements. While these informal systemsappear moderately functional, there are instances where a general lack of knowledge lead to duplicated efforts.

e. Identification of formal education programs that currently exist and determination if these are sufficient to repre-sent all of the identified concerns.

The majority of current, local educational programs are fairly well known in the regulatory community, but it isnecessary to insure that information on these assets remains current and easily accessible. Educators and regulatorsmust also be open to regional, national, and international programs that have been successful in connecting withtarget audiences.

The rich cultural diversity of the communities surrounding the bay must be recognized, and all existing andnew educational initiatives must take these demographics into consideration. Educators and regulators mustremain flexible and poised to immediately retool any program or initiative as outside influences and global politicalforces impact our local immigration status.

f. New initiativesAssessment of local educational efforts by the subcommittee has determined that sufficient resources are

currently available, but that the single agency-specific approach to this process is making for a disjointed and lessthan efficient vehicle for reaching target audiences. Subcommittee efforts have uncovered other national andinternational programs that may be used locally to unite educational initiatives for greater distribution.

Any new effort must include demographic and cultural considerations. New proposals or initiatives must bepackaged to reflect contemporary trends in marketing and management strategies. Advances in technology shouldbe considered in the way information is distributed and feedback is collected.

Regulationa. Impacts caused by existing regulations and agency structure are generally adequate to protect the bay resources from

projects built within the bay, but not necessarily for projects built adjacent to the bay or within its watershed.b. Inter-agency coordination works well but could be improved.c .Implementation of the Shoreline Development Review Ordinance has not been completed in a manner that fully

realizes the protections it provides.d. There is a need to improve agencies permit processing times and overall resource assessment capabilities.e. Direct, secondary and accumulative impacts to environmentally significant areas such as Biscayne National Park,

and the Virginia Key Critical Wildlife Area should be addressed for both in-water, wetland and upland projects.f. Staffing at the county, state & Army Corps regulatory offices should be increased to improve inter-agency coordina-

tion, permit processing time and overall resource assessment capabilities.g. There is a need to gather data on endangered species, water quality, and both boater impacts & distribution; in

addition, resource inventory should be improved to refine management.


RECOMMENDATIONSINCREASED FUNDING FOR BISCAYNE BAY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION

1. Existing local, state, and federal agencies, as well as citizen groups involved in bay issues should join to create aformal arrangement to coordinate funding requests and strengthen inter-agency cooperation. This “Task Force“should have one full time staff person and include the following agencies: Biscayne National Park, EvergladesNational Park, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Fish andWildlife Conservation Commission, South Florida Water Management District, Miami-Dade County Departmentof Environmental Resource Management, Miami-Dade County Department of Planning and Zoning, and represen-tation from the private sector. A Memorandum of Agreement should be drawn up and adopted after consultationby all participants.

2. One of the initial assignments of this “Task Force“ should be to identify existing user fees (such as vessel registra-tions and fishing licenses) and determine how and to what extent they are used, and make recommendations abouthow they can be better used.

LAND ACQUISITION1. Existing land acquisition programs should focus their efforts on acquiring lands within the Biscayne Bay watershed.2. Develop additional efforts to acquire lands within the Biscayne Bay watershed that are not targeted by existing land

acquisition programs.

COUNTY ORDINANCESRevise existing county ordinances and/or county or local comprehensive plans to include direct, secondary and commutativeimpacts to environmentally significant areas. These include, but are not limited to, Biscayne National Park and the VirginiaKey Critical Wildlife Area for in-water, wetland, and upland projects, to insure the extraordinary values of these areas arepreserved.

NEED FOR INCREASED ENFORCEMENT1. Establish a centralized grant location to fund multi-agency enforcement initiatives. Costs (personnel, overtime and

fuel) associated with inter-agency efforts, such as the Columbus Day Regatta Task Force, “Operation Sea Cow“ andother cooperative ventures, would be paid from these funds.

2. Marine law enforcement agency directors should be educated about the need for, and urged to provide, a 24 hour, 7days per week enforcement presence.

3. Require that Miami-Dade County and/or the municipalities use zoning inspectors to inspect all new shorelinedevelopments for compliance with the recommendations of the Shoreline Development Review Committee, asadopted by the applicable zoning authority.

4. Mandate that all government agencies fill existing marine enforcement vacancies.5. Increase staffing at the county, state and federal regulatory agencies to improve permit processing times and overall

resource assessment capabilities.6. State law should be revised to include a vessel grounding damage violation to protect bay bottom resources.

(Recommended language is shown in Appendix C to this report.)7. Encourage the judiciary and marine law enforcement policy makers to require that Florida Litter Law violators do

cleanup along shorelines as part of penalty.


8. Increase fines for marine citations by $20.00 (currently $50.00), with the additional money going to increaseenforcement (such as multi-agency enforcement initiatives previously described) and marine regulatory signage.

9. Require an additional cost to register a vessel if the owner does not have proof of successful completion of anaccredited boating education course.

10. Give first time offenders the option to take a boater safety course instead of paying fine, unless mandatory bystatute.

11. Review present funding received by Miami-Dade County under Florida Statutes 328.66 and 328.27, to insuremonies are used for enforcement and other boating related activities. Funds are available for these projects fromthe Florida Inland Navigation District, and under Florida Statute 328.66 County and municipality optionalregistration fee, and 328.72 (15) Distribution of fees.

12. Perform annual manpower needs assessments (See Appendix B).

NEED FOR IMPROVED DATAInformation Clearinghouse:

a. Create a central clearinghouse, through the use of an existing and recognized organization for regulatory and allother types of information, pertinent to bay and watershed issues.

b. Network with existing public information organizations to make pertinent bay and marine information available tothem.

c. Hold an annual conference for educators and regulators to ensure that all interested parties actively network, andthat new initiatives and current educational techniques are explored in depth.

d. Contact other partnership/preservation/regulatory initiatives, conducted in other locations, for an exchange ofinformation and ideas.

Other Related Recommendations:a. To provide adequate data pertaining to Biscayne Bay, a comprehensive study, funded by matching funds form local,

state, and federal governments, should be one of the following:• user population impacts on the bay;• endangered species;• water quality;• resource inventory; and• boater impacts and distribution.

b. Determine the target audiences that need to be reached and the best way to reach them. Using existing user surveydata from local governmental sources and existing databases, such as boat registrations, fishing licenses, marinedredge and fill permits, marine insurance companies, and other associated marine industry and related services toidentify possible target audiences.

1. Review violations data from regulatory agencies to establish profiles about what entities are more prone toexperience the adverse effects of non-regulatory compliance, and tailor educational efforts to reduce theseoccurrences.

2. Conduct a partnership-directed user group survey with input from all bay regulatory agencies to insure thatall areas of interest and focus are covered.

3. Explore similar regional, national, and international efforts to identify contemporary survey and census-gathering methods.


c. Identify formal education programs that currently exist and determine if they are sufficient.1. Almost every agency involved in the Initiative has some type of public education program or campaign in

place. Program complexity ranges from rudimentary to those employing the most technological advancescurrently available. Great strides in public education about regulations can be made by having agenciesshare their current educational approaches with others. Advances in computer technology, and an increasein internet exploration, provide opportunities to correct some communication deficiencies experienced inthe past.

2. Some of the agencies are currently focusing educational efforts for school children in grades K through 12with the belief that this particular groups early involvement is essential to gaining future understandingand support for bay initiatives. This focus appears to have universal appeal and acceptance, but to keep theinitiative headed in the right direction, additional agency involvement is needed.

3. The importance of public support is so essential to the success of any portion of these initiatives, that allentities should be required to elevate their public education campaigns to a position of prominence withintheir overall goal setting strategy.

INTERAGENCY ACTIVITIESCoordination Between Agencies:

a. Expand the Marine Advisory Support Team (MAST) to include an inter-agency marine regulatory task force toaddress enforcement issues baywide. MAST already provides for public input for concerns in the marine commu-nity, and enforcement coordination is addressed informally through this venue. This MAST task force wouldprovide a community policing aspect to the marine environment.

The MAST task force would coordinate “hits“ where agencies could go together to inspect areas along theshoreline of the bay, employing similar tactics to those used by the Miami River Enforcement Group. This ap-proach would more efficiently coordinate agency resources and provide better 'customer service' to the regulatedpublic. Finally, this task force would need a baywide mutual aid agreement (a Memorandum of Understanding) togive marine agencies cross-jurisdiction when operating under the auspices of the MAST task force.

b. A common marine law enforcement radio frequency for Miami-Dade County must be designated to conductinteragency operations. All agencies engaged in marine enforcement within the geographical areas of Miami-DadeCounty should be mandated to install this communication capability on their vessels.

Interaction With General Population:a. Create interaction in the regulatory process between the general public and the education community.

1. Take advantage of new advances in technology to insure the maximum amount of participation andfeedback. Employ teleconferencing capabilities to maximize participation and satisfy Sunshine Lawrequirements. Establish a centralized web site to post current and proposed regulations, along with capa-bilities for user input and comment.

2. Establish requirements for all new proposed regulations to include an educational initiative plan tomaximize information dissemination to produce better user group understanding and compliance.

3. Regulators and educators should be encouraged to meet frequently throughout the entire regulatoryprocess to insure the focus of initiatives remains on track and that educational principles are maintained.

4. Encourage the creation of a special alliance, or a professional association of educators, associated with bayeducational efforts.

5. Establish a centralized advisory panel to serve as the informational clearinghouse for all initiatives of thisnature.

b. Establish system of feedback from user groups to regulators and legislators.1. Actively pursue consistent coordination between trade groups, boating clubs, and environmental support

organizations to enhance feedback from their constituents.


2. Increase efforts to ensure that regulatory issues and proposed planning sessions receive the greatest possibleexposure and advertising to attract as much external involvement as possible.

3. Expand efforts to enhance public involvement in regulatory processes such as the Miami-Dade PoliceDepartments Marine Advisory Support Team (MAST). Encourage other agencies to initiate similarsupport teams.

4. Identify leaders from the non-governmental organizations not previously included in dialogue for proposedrule making.

MARINE REGULATORY SIGNAGE1. Require all agencies with jurisdiction over the bay to review and inventory existing marine signage

annually and submit a comprehensive report to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission(FWC) that would include the condition and location of signage.

2. Create a Florida Boating Safety Section. Among this sections initiatives would be annual reports fromagencies with bay jurisdiction about their bay-related activities, plus recommendations of necessaryactions, including locations of regulatory signs needing maintenance and where additional signs areneeded. The FWC should be designated as the central repository for these annual reports.

3. Request additional funding from the legislature and Florida Inland Navigational District for maintenanceof existing signs and installation of new signs including, Manatee Speed Zones, channelmarkers (Intrac-oastal waterway, private channel markers), bridge signs (No wake/marine traffic), and storm drain signs.

DEFICIENCIES OF THE PROCESSThe team has experienced some difficulties during the process leading up to this report which it feels should be acknowl-edged. First, the structure of the Initiative was complete without input from co-chairs and participants, and the selectionprocess of team members was not as responsive to input from the team co-chairs as it could have been. This may have led tothe second difficulty of having many named members who did not attend meetings, making it hard to complete team workefficiently. Lastly, it proved extremely difficult to get most of the team members who were from the private sector to partici-pate in the development of this report.


Federal Agencies:1. United States Coast Guard2. United States Customs Service3. Immigration and Naturalization Service4. United States Border Patrol5. United States Army Corps of Engineers6. United States Department of Agriculture7. Drug Enforcement Agency8. Federal Bureau of Investigation9. United States Marshalls Office10. United States Occupational Safety and Health

Administration11. United States National Park Service12. United States Environmental Protection Agency13. United States Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms14. United States Department of Transportation15. United States Department of Maritime Adminis-

tration

State Agencies:1. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commis-

sion2. South Florida Water Management District3. Florida Department of Transportation4. Florida Department of Environmental Protection5. Florida Inland Navigation District6. Florida Department of Community Affairs7. Public Health Department

County Agencies:1. Miami-Dade Department of Environmental

Resources Management2. Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Depart-

ment3. Miami-Dade County Fire Department4. Miami-Dade County Public Works5. Miami-Dade County Building Department6. Miami-Dade County Solid Waste7. Miami-Dade Police Department8. Miami-Dade County Planning Department and

Zoning Department9. Miami-Dade County Seaport Department

Cities/Municipalities:1. Miami2. Coral Gables3. Biscayne Park4. North Miami5. Miami Shores6. North Miami Beach7. Aventura8. Village of Key Biscayne9. Golden Beach10. Bal Harbor11. Bay Harbor12. Surfside13. Indian Creek14. Miami Beach15. Sunny Isles Beach16. El Portal17. North Bay Village

ENTITIES WITH JURISDICTION OVER BISCAYNE BAY

APPENDIX A


APPENDIX BSTAFFING WITHIN REGULATORY & ENFORCEMENT AGENCIESMiami-Dade County Police Marine Patrol UnitMiami-Dade County is a popular boating destination. Numerous islands and inlets characterize its coastline. The area ishome to the Port of Miami, the Port of Miami River, Cape Florida and Oleta State Parks, Biscayne National Park, and sixmajor marinas. Marine policing issues range from those associated with the inner city to those of undeveloped areas. Thepopulation of Miami-Dade County continues to grow, increasing recreational boating and criminal activity on the bay. Thecountys close proximity to the Bahamas, Haiti, and Cuba make it a high smuggling area.

According to the 1999 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission statistics, Miami-Dade County is rankedfirst in the state with the most registered vessels (53,000), fourth in boating accidents, first in fatal boating accidents, andnumber one in registered personal watercraft (8,111). Miami-Dade County is bordered by Broward County, which is rankedthird in the state with 45,041 registered vessels and number two in registered personal watercraft (6,931).

The Miami-Dade Police Marine Patrol Unit provides marine patrol and underwater recovery services to unincorporatedareas of Miami-Dade County. Daily coverage is provided from 7 a.m. to 5 p. m. Specialized patrol deployments are developedin response to major marine events, holidays, and during the summer.

Miami-Dade Police Department Marine Patrol Unit Staffing

Staffing Level 1993 Current Staffing 2000-2001 New MilleniumStaffingOffices 3 Offices 3 Offices 3Supervisors 5 Supervisors 5 Supervisors 5Officers 15 Officers 14 Officers 18Administrative Support 1 Administrative Support 1 Administrative Support 1

City of Miami Marine Patrol DetailThe City of Miami Marine Patrol Detail is currently located at Watson Island, on the second floor of the Miami Yacht Club,1001 MacArthur Causeway. The detail has seven members; one supervisor and six officers, and nine police vessels to patrolthe waterways within the City of Miamis jurisdiction. These officers primarily work day shift hours, changing their hoursduring the summer months to cover the early evening hours.

The detail has jurisdiction over one of the busiest body of waters in Miami-Dade County, if not in the entire state ofFlorida. The Intracoastal Waterway runs from the City of Miamis northern boundary at NE 87 Street through Biscayne Bayto its southern boundary near the Coral Gables waterway. The Port of Miami, one of the busiest ports in the state, is in themiddle of City of Miamis jurisdiction. The Miami River, with its many vessels and waterfront facilities, runs right throughdowntown Miami to NW 27 Avenue. The City of Miami has six public boat ramps located within its jurisdiction, all ofwhich serve the needs of many south Florida boaters. The public uses these boat ramps for free, and boaters come from theall around Miami-Dade County.

Two supervisors and fourteen officers working two shifts previously manned the City of Miamis Marine Patrol Detail.The calls for service, the number of vessels, and the emergence of personal watercrafts using the waters within the City ofMiami have increased significantly since then. The detail is now staffed with less than half of the personnel that it reachedat its maximum staffing levels. The significant increase in the amount of engine horsepower, causing the increase in speedsof the vessels using this area, has also caused a considerable number of new violations to occur in these waterways.


The Miami-Dade County Manatee Ordinance affects all the waters within the City of Miamis jurisdiction. Manateesare a precious and endangered species in serious trouble in the State of Florida. Their very survival is in jeopardy due to theenormous amount of boat traffic they encounter. Greater awareness and care on the part of all bay user groups is necessary.An annual grant from the state of Florida to Miami-Dade County to hire more marine enforcement officers to assist withmanatee and other enforcement efforts would be welcomed by all the agencies involved.

City Of Miami Marine Patrol Detail

Staffing Level 1990 Current Staffing 2000-2001 “New Millennium” StaffingSworn 16 Sworn 6 Sworn 16Supervisors: 2 Supervisors: 1 Supervisors: 2Officers: 14 Officers: 5 Officers: 14

Biscayne National ParkBiscayne National Park compromises 240 square miles (172,000 acres) of Biscayne Bay, 40 island keys, and coral reefformations out to the sixty-foot depth contour. Biscayne is one of the largest marine protected areas within the NationalPark System, and is an area of state and federal concurrent jurisdiction. Currently there are seven (7) fully-commissionedlaw enforcement park rangers, with three (3) of these commissions in supervisory or support roles. This number is exactlyhalf of the commissions that were active in the park in 1990. The primary reason for this decline was the professionalizationof the Park Ranger series that elevated law enforcement, and other disciplines, from collateral assignments to full timeresponsibilities. The current ranger staff performs full law enforcement duties, emergency medical, search and rescue,structural and wildland fire fighting, cultural and natural resources protection, fee collection, as well as serving in other parkcollateral functions. Patrol activities are relegated primarily to daytime hours, with additional emphasis placed on weekendand holiday periods. Ordinarily there are no routine enforcement/protection patrols on the water after 7:00 P.M. To ad-equately protect park visitors and resources, and to manage new protection initiatives that have been proposed for thefuture, we would at least need to re-establish staffing levels that existed in 1990. As the population of Miami-Dade Countycontinues to grow, we will need to increase the protection of the resources to avoid further resource degradation and adversevisitor use impacts.

Biscayne National Park

Staffing Level 1990-1991 Current Staffing 2000-2001 “New Millennium Staffing“ 14 Sworn 7 Sworn 14 Sworn Supervisors: 2 Supervisors: 2 Supervisors: 2 Officers: 11 Officers: 6 Officers: 11 Support: 1 Support: 1 Support: 1

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Bureau of Marine EnforcementWith nearly 54,000 recreational boats registered in Miami-Dade County in 1999 and marine industry estimates of more than26,000 transient visitor vessels for the year, it is obvious that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission(FWC) Marine Patrols allocated staffing of twenty positions for the county (including supervisors) is inadequate. Thecurrent breakdown is nearly 5,000 boats per officer position in a county of some two point two million residents. The FloridaLegislature recognized that more officers were needed ten years ago (when staffing was a third greater than at present) andordered the Florida Marine Patrol (FMP) to develop a five-year plan to provide an adequate number of officers for the oldDistrict Six (Dade and Broward Counties), now District 2A. The five-year plan submitted to the Legislature called for atotal of 97 positions in the District, apportioned between the two counties, by the end of fiscal year 1995. Although the plan


was approved, the additional patrol positions never materialized, and the net result was actually a reduction due to deletionof positions, transfer of positions to other locations within the agency and legislative cuts. As the lead agency in conserva-tion, boating and marine environmental law enforcement, the Florida Marine Patrol maintained the only scheduled andongoing 24-hour patrol, and today no law enforcement agency in this area provides a comparable level of service in the bay.The restoration of eight lost positions would return todays FWC Marine Patrol in Miami-Dade County to the FMP staffingof ten years ago. This would not, however, make an allowance for the decades increases in population, registered boats,fisheries industry, or duties and responsibilities of our officers. The “best case“ scenario would provide for a staffing increaseproportionate to the needs of the new millennium and reflect the states commitment to properly managing the human andenvironmental resource that is Biscayne Bay.

FMP/FWC Marine Patrol Positions For Miami-Dade County

Staffing Level 1990-1991 Current Staffing 2000-2001 “New Millennium“ Staffing28 sworn 20 sworn 40 swornSupervisor: 4 Supervisors: 4 Supervisors: 5Officers: 24 Officers: 16 Officers: 35Admin. Support: 1 Admin. Support: 2 Admin. Support: 4


APPENDIX CCODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONSDamage to Reefs, Sea Grasses and Sea Bottom by Boat PropellersThe suggested wording for state law to protect bay bottom resources from vessel grounding violations comes from the Codeof Federal Regulations, Title 36 (Parks, Forests, and Public Property), Volume I, Part 2 (Resource Protection, Public Use andRecreation) Section 2.1 (Preservation of Natural, Cultural and Archeological Resources), (a)(1)(ii):

“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the following is prohibited: (1) Possessing, Destroying, Injuring, Defacing, Digging, or Disturbing from its natural state: (ii) Plants or the parts or products thereof.“


APPENDIX DACTIVE REGULATION TEAM MEMBERS by SUBCOMMITTEEChairsMajor Kenneth B. Clark, District Commander, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation CommissionPhil Everingham, President, Miami Marine Council

EducationalWayne C. Elliott, Chief, Law Enforcement, Biscayne National ParkFernando Moreno, Academic Chair, University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine ASConstantine Hadjilambrinos, Asst. Professor, Florida International University

RegulatoryEdward A. Swakon, President, EAS Engineering Inc.Charles A. Schnepel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Miami OfficeCraig Grossenbacher, Chief, Coastal Resources, Miami-Dade DERMMaureen Brody Harwitz, Executive Director, Munisport Dump CoalitionMike Miles, Commander, Marine Safety Office, U.S. Coast GuardPatti Thompson, Biologist, Save the ManateeRobert Weinreb, South Florida Board Sailing AssociationMary Murphy, Administrator, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Regulatory Programs

EnforcementMilton Brelsford, Lieutenant, Marine Patrol Unit, Miami-Dade PoliceRuth Ellis Myers, Developmental Impact Committee Coordinator, Miami-Dade County Dept of Planning and ZoningKristine Serbesoff, Environmental Analyst, South Florida Water Management DistrictArthur Serig, Sergeant, Marine Patrol Detail, Miami Police Department



Minority Reportof the Biscayne Bay Partnership Initiative

Final Report


The Marine Council269 Giralda Avenue, Suite 302Coral Gables, FL 33134305.856.0206

February 2, 2001

Dear Chairman Ruvin:

Please accept this letter as a Minority Report submitted on behalf of The Marine Council.Using the Biscayne Bay Partnership Initiative as a genesis, we look forward to taking a proactive role in the ongoing effortsto protect Biscayne Bay and to maximize its benefits to the entire South Florida community.

Sincerely,

Philip B. EveringhamPresidentThe Marine Council

minority report317

Minority ReportFirst of all, let us state our full support for the BBPI’s goal of procuring significantly more public funding to “protect, im-prove, and enhance the bay’s resources.” Adequate funding is necessary for any effort to produce meaningful results, and thelong term protection of Biscayne Bay is certainly no exception.

As representative of the boating public in Miami-Dade County, we applaud many of the recommendations contained inthe Policy Development Committee’s Final Report, especially the recommendations for:• Funding to mark channels, seagrass beds, and coral areas, and to provide maintenance for markers and signage;• Improve coordinated public education and outreach;• Increase access to the bay to those who will use it in a manner that will preserve it for future generations;• Management strategies for Biscayne Bay must include coordinated public education and outreach among various groups,

including direct users of the bay with an emphasis on boaters (emphasis ours);• Develop economically sound methods to restore and maintain freshwater wetland, coastal mangrove, benthic seagrass,

and coral communities;• Preserve water-dependent uses and facilities along the bay shoreline;• Encourage the use of waterfront property along the bay and the Miami River where appropriate for job-producing,

water-dependent commercial activity (emphasis ours) that provides adequate protection to the environment;• Increase funding for enforcement, public information, signage and regulatory efforts to increase compliance rate;• Expand the Marine Advisory Support Team to include an interagency marine regulatory task force to address bayside

enforcement issues;• Designate a common marine law enforcement radio frequency

We take issue, however, with a number of recommendations which will create new committees and/or “action plans”that we believe will have regulatory impact, despite claims to the contrary. It was our understanding that the existingregulatory framework was determined to be sufficient to protect the bay, and that improvements should focus more onenforcement and compliance rather than on promulgating new regulations. Unfortunately, it is our experience that regula-tory agencies have a tendency to treat goals and policy recommendations of quasi-regulatory committees with the same levelof zeal as they do statutory mandates. In many instances, these plans become “legislation” by reference, often without publicinput.

For this reason, we object very strongly to the following recommendations:• Funding a Science Committee to coordinate scientific research, monitoring and restoration activities; while we support

scientific research and recognize its value, we are convinced this group will not be balanced in its opinions;• the establishment of a Biscayne Bay Project Coordination Team and a Biscayne Bay Action Plan; we are concerned that

such a team, if not made up of all bay stakeholders equally, could become a “loose cannon” that could come up withobjectionable recommendations without sufficient public input or adequate controls; In sum, we are concerned thatenvironmental protection would override any concern for economic or social considerations.

• Refine water quality standards used to indicate the presence of sewage; we believe this proposal is too vague and areconcerned that the new standards will target boats without sufficient background data;

• Develop water quality targets necessary to prevent water quality degradation; same concern as above;• Pursue the goal of identifying and eliminating all sources of degradation; same concern as above;• Carrying capacity of Biscayne Bay should be determined and not exceeded; we object very strongly to this proposal.

However noble the concept, who will determine how “capacity” is measured, and how this will be enforced? We trulybelieve this can’t be done. Also, as with other attempts at growth management, this would most likely be challenged inthe courts.

• “The Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act is inviolate and should never be weakened.” However beneficial it may be, nolaw should ever be “cast in stone.” In fact, the Act has unintentionally produced a huge focus on marina development


on non-State-owned submerged land due to the Act’s “extreme hardship” requirement and in turn new marinas can’t bebuilt. This denies new points of access to the bay to boaters.

We also have concerns with several aspects of the BBPI process:• the structure, which was set prior to any volunteers being asked to participate, should have been developed with input

from at least the Co-Chairs;• the interests of the primary users of Biscayne Bay—boaters—were not well represented on the survey teams and the

Policy Development Committee, and little effort was made to seek their perspective;• makeup of and attendance by the various survey teams was very often unbalanced, particularly in terms of lack of

participation by the private sector, due to meetings being scheduled during the work week, and often for the entire day;• this same problem affected the Policy Development committee, which was responsible for approving the content of the

final report;• this lack of balance by definition skewed the efforts for consensus, and most important in our view, has produced a

report that favors the views of regulatory agencies and environmental groups.

We strongly believe the report’s tone clearly emphasizes environmental considerations and recommendations far morethan economic ones. However, the final report makes a very important statement that is unfortunately buried in the text ofthe section on “Population and Economic Growth:”

“Taken altogether, bay-related commercial and recreational activities may account for approximately 15 – 20 percent ofthe local economy.” (Emphasis ours)

If even close to being accurate, this clearly shows the need for a balanced approach to bay management that fiveseconomic considerations equal weight to environmental ones.

A glaring omission from the report’s educational sections is the critical importance of boater education and support forthe value of responsible boating. This is one of the primary goals of The Marine Council, and should be a key recommenda-tion in the report.

Perhaps an even more glaring omission form the report is any mention of fishing and fishermen, both recreational andcommercial, beyond three references that are very negative in tone, specifically:• “Finally, commercial and recreation fishing are thought to have contributed substantially to resource change in Biscayne

Bay.” (Emphasis ours)• “The combined effects of the commercial and recreational fleets have contributed to increased fishing pressure.”• “Only a well-informed public and its representatives can protect the bay from the increasing pressures of...” (several

things, including) “... damage related to fishing techniques.”

The fact is that many fishermen, both commercial and recreational, are as concerned with species population andhabitat as anyone, and are making concerted efforts to help through groups such as the Coastal Conservation Association ofFlorida, The Billfish Foundation, the American Sprotfishing Association, and the Center for Sustainable Fisheries at theUniversity of Miami’s Rosentstiel School. The vast majority of fishermen fully respect the bay and its resources, and aretotally supportive of any efforts to help maintain and grow fishing stocks in the bay.

Last but not least, we have grave misgivings that the great majority of any funding that might come from this Partner-ship Initiative would, according the recommendations the final report, go not to the Coordination Team of bay stakeholdersbut to various regulatory agencies. In our opinion, this removes a critical element of control by those most concerned withthe bay, and makes any input to and monitoring of results much more difficult.Despite these concerns, we believe passionately in the importance of Biscayne Bay and its long term health, and we fullysupport a balanced effort to both protect the Bay and at the same time maximize its benefits to the South Florida commu-nity.

Respectfully submitted,

Philip B. EveringhamPresident, The Marine Council

minority report319

Miami River Marine Group480 S.W. 1st CourtMiami, FL 33130

February 2, 2001

Dear Mr. Ruvin:

The Miami River Marine Group would like to lend its name in support of the Minority Report submitted by The MarineCouncil responding to the Biscayne Bay Partnership Initiative’s Final Report. While we wish we could fully support theBBPI Report, we are unable to do so because of concerns already articulated by The Marine Council, and because of addi-tional concerns that result from our observations of the process.

First, members of the river’s marine industry find the bias of the report to be reflective of a partnership between agen-cies, academia and environmental organizations, but not of the many commercial interests that use the Bay. True, the namesof some commercial enterprises are included on each of the BBPI committee lists, but in reality, participation from theprivate sector was curtailed by the frequent day long meetings which were most prohibitive to that group of people.

The marine industry is particularly demanding, and I know of few companies that can spare a key individual for anentire day on a monthly, sometimes twice-monthly, basis. Our representative on the Management Team, Dr. Fran Bohnsack,expressed this concern to her Team, to the Co-chairs, and in a letter to the BBPI organizers, all to no avail.

Second, when members of the private sector were able to attend meetings, even if not for the entire day, their viewswere often discounted since they were much fewer in number. As a result, there were few successful efforts on the part ofcommercial enterprises to correct errors of fact, negative impression, or biases against the private sector. These, and a varietyof assertions unsupported by fact, were subjected to committee votes; their validity was determined by the will of themajority. Most disappointing was the fact that “consensus” was articulated as a goal and a value of the process, but in reality,there was no real effort to achieve consensus.

Third, committee members with dissenting views were urged to devote precious time to providing written commentswhich were never discussed by the group. This absence of acknowledgment did not serve as an incentive to the privatesector for increased participation or further commentary since it left the undermining impression that comments wereselectively disregarded.

Finally, an overall reading of the document does not reflect the balance we would wish to see when evaluating theenvironmental and economic importance of Biscayne Bay. Terms which refer to boats and ships are too often pejorative,loaded with assumptions which undermine the economic values of Biscayne Bay.

It is my hope that further efforts by the BBPI’s organization will be more inclusive of the Bay’s true diversity, and notinjurious to the many benefits offered by the marine industry which relies upon the bay. I would welcome the opportunity toeducate members of the Partnership as to the modern practices and concerns of the marine industry.

Sincerely,

James W. BrownPresident

Fran Bohnsack, Ph.D.Executive Director


Documents

survey TEAM final reports - Biscayne Bay · 2016-03-25 · 2 Biscayne bay partnership initiative PREFACE Dear Friends, This document is the accompaniment to A Bright, Great Bay, which